Pacifism?

[Max S Cherry]

Where should a discussion of pacifism be posted? Under philosophy? Would anyone be interested in discussing it?

I started a discussion on pacifism in a different forum, but because it had already caused tempers to flare there, no one was interested in discussing it with me. If the same is true here, I can look elsewhere for my answers, but if not, I am relatively new to pacifism and would like to understand it more.

 

[Paradoxum]

You could discuss it here, or the ethics section.

 

[Max S Cherry]

You could discuss it here, or the ethics section.

Thank you. I will try it here.

 

[Max S Cherry]

Pacifism is a new concept for me, but as a Christian, I believe it is the only course Christ made available to me. I would like to know how others feel about the issue. I think it is only natural for non-Christians (unless they belong to a faith or world view similar in this respect) to disagree, and if there is no life after death, I think it is only natural to want to protect this life at all costs.

The following is copied from the forum I originally posted it:
"I am from the Great and Glorious Southern State of Mississippi, and I have never rebuked anyone for calling me a redneck. One of the most cherished principles I grew up believing was that killing to defend myself was only trumped in righteousness by killing in defense of my loved ones. I add that information, because it seems to me that some think that Scripture is twisted to suit a person's individual preference and to add support to the beliefs that person already possesses. While that is certainly true in some cases, I have never "wanted" to be a pacifist, and it is against every grain of my person that I now find myself exactly that. My understanding of Christianity does not allow any other position, and I can guarantee you all that I have not arrived at this position because I wanted to be here. I believe (I cannot say that I think this) that I was led here by the Holy Spirit, and I believe that the Holy Spirit speaks to our hearts and guides us where He wants us to go. Am I sure of it? Absolutely not.

Upon discovering pacifism, I made mention of it at the Round Table (it is my parents' dinner table where my family gathers for Sunday dinners...and no, it is not round) to get the opinions of my relatives. I stated that I believed war to be wrong (I use "wrong" to mean "sinful"), because war is the business of killing. I was asked if I believed all killing to be wrong, and I answered that I did. I was given the following two hypotheticals:

Hypo #1:
I and my family (wife and daughter) are enjoying a nice evening at home when a masked bandit(s) comes in and states his(their) plans to rape, kill, and rob us all. I have means of defending us from the intrusion, but due to the nature of my means, I cannot merely wound but must kill to defend (imagine an insta-kill gun). Furthermore, due to circumstances, I cannot disarm the attacker(s), and they will not listen to reasoning. What would I do?

My response:
I have no option. As I understand it, Christ left me no option. Of course, I am going to die or be seriously wounded in the first contact of the invasion as I will not stand by and let anyone harm my wife and/or daughter. Of course, I am going to throw myself between my family and their attacker(s), but in the end, evil will prevail. I know this just as I know that, in the end of this world and this age, evil will prevail. I choose to pray for my attacker(s), and I pray for my family and for myself. I say that I have acted in accordance with Christ's instructions; I have loved my neighbor; and I have done as I would have done to me.

Part of my reasoning here is that my wife, my daughter, and I are all Christians, and our physical death is nothing but a formality. It is going to happen, and the issues of when it happens and how it happens are not to be my chief concerns. I have been given a set of parameters within which I may live, and to live outside those parameters is to sin. If I have to take a certain step to save a life and if that step is sinful, saving that life is sinful. I cannot judge people. That's the rule, but I can judge situations. If a person tells me his intention to rape, kill, and rob me, I cannot judge him to be a non-Christian, but I can rest certain in the knowledge that my family is Christian. Can I kill a man and possibly send him to hell to prevent him from killing my family and sending us to heaven? Does it even make sense that I should want to do that? Is it Christian to do that in light of the fact that Christ left heaven, came to earth, and was killed to save us all from hell? And that we are to be Christ-like or one-who-lives-in-Christ seems to add to the prohibition.

Hypo #2:
My family took my meaning a little there, but then added a "greater good" issue to it. Now, after the intruder(s) have raped, killed, and robbed my Christian family, the bandit(s) set their sights on another family, and this is a family of non-Christians without the means for either defending themselves or disarming the bandit(s). The bandit(s) rape, kill, and rob this family, and they go on to do the same to countless other non-Christians condemning them all to an eternity in hell. In the end, the bandit(s) die rich, famous, and full of years, and he (they) go straight to hell.

I could have saved all those extra people and gave them additional time to discover God's mercy and perhaps be saved by killing the intruder(s) when I had the chance. Sure, he (they) would (might) have gone to hell, but it was where he (they) ended up eventually anyways. How do I feel about that?

My response:
This is where a distinction between Direct and Indirect consequences arises, and in “greater good” discussions, it seems to me to be very important. If I kill a non-Christian, I am willingly participating in sending a person to hell. That is clear. His going to hell is a direct consequence of my action. If I fail to kill him and if he goes on to kill a hundred more non-Christians, I am indirectly responsible (in part) for sending them to hell. Are they the same thing? No.

I am responsible for what I do, and I am held accountable for my actions alone. There is no blood on my hands, because I failed to kill someone. The blood is on the person's hands who committed the act. The reason I believe that God judges us solely on our actions and not on the actions that our actions allow is because I believe that God judges us by the rules He created for Himself. It is the reason why greater good issues should probably never be issues.

Is God responsible for evil? As far as that goes, what is evil? Evil is sin, and sin is evil. Choose either word, and the meaning is the same. Evil/sin is living/acting in opposition to the will of God. Where did evil come from? Did Satan create evil? No. Did God? No. God created beings and endowed them with the ability to choose to do His will. The beings chose to not do His will, and evil was born. God was indirectly responsible for evil because He created the circumstances in which evil arose, but God did not create evil. God created Good, and God gave beings the ability to choose Good. The result of these two things was evil.

This is the reason why I think it is a sin to kill someone in defense of self or others, and it is the reason why it is not a sin to fail to kill someone who will(might) kill someone else. I find Christ’s insistence that we love, forgive, and suffer to be primarily for the good of others that they might seek Him rather than just for our own benefit. As Christians, we are saved, and if we claim to love, forgive, and suffer in the tradition of Christ, we do our faith an injustice when we kill (even in the defense of self or others) as this seems to indicate a lack of conviction on our part.

___________________________________________

So that is what I posted in the other forum, and I did not find anyone willing to discuss the matter beyond a few posts. What I want to know is two fold:

One, Christians do you feel the same way, or do you believe that taking a life is sometimes okay or even required? If you believe that it is okay, what verses did you use to develop that belief?

Two, non-Christians, especially those who do not believe in any type of afterlife or existence beyond death, do you value your life above all else? If not, why not?

 

[GrowingSmaller]

If we know this life more surely then our obligation to safeguard its sanctity (as consciousness of value) because that is the focal dimension of known responsibility. Sacrifice for enemies is counterproductive, sacrifice for an unknown (albeit "hypothetical") future state is folly.

 

[Davian]

<snip>

Two, non-Christians, especially those who do not believe in any type of afterlife or existence beyond death, do you value your life above all else?

No.

If not, why not?

Intellectually, I know my life would be a lot easier if I were to be single, child free, as opposed to having a family and kids. Why go through all that effort? Because it feels right, I guess. I know I would risk life and limb for my family.

Scientifically, I will put it down to an evolved trait, altruism. Individuals or groups that favoured this trait would be at an advantage (more babies surviving to child-bearing age) than those that didn't. The effect would only have to be small.

Altruism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"...when volunteers generously placed the interests of others before their own by making charitable donations, another brain circuit was selectively activated: the subgenual cortex/septal region. These structures are intimately related to social attachment and bonding in other species. Altruism, the experiment suggested, was not a superior moral faculty that suppresses basic selfish urges but rather was basic to the brain, hard-wired and pleasurable.[16]"

What do you think our ancestors, living on the savannah, would make of your pacifist approach to agressors? On evolutionary time scales, that was a short time ago.

 

[Max S Cherry]

If we know this life more surely then our obligation to safeguard its sanctity (as consciousness of value) because that is the focal dimension of known responsibility. Sacrifice for enemies is counterproductive, sacrifice for an unknown (albeit "hypothetical") future state is folly.

Noted. Thank you for your response.

No.

Intellectually, I know my life would be a lot easier if I were to be single, child free, as opposed to having a family and kids. Why go through all that effort? Because it feels right, I guess. I know I would risk life and limb for my family.

Easier perhaps, but easy would not necessarily mean better, unless one was defined to include the other.

Scientifically, I will put it down to an evolved trait, altruism. Individuals or groups that favoured this trait would be at an advantage (more babies surviving to child-bearing age) than those that didn't. The effect would only have to be small.

First, what you call an evolved trait seems to be more of a personal opinion to me. I can see how it might help a particular group to be altruistic, but I think it would have been more beneficial to the group that learned to take advantage of the altruists. They would have reaped all the benefits without suffering any of the costs. Secondly, groups would not have been required to think that having more babies survive to child-bearing age was necessarily beneficial or desirable. There is nothing in procreation or the continuing of a species that makes it inherently or objectively good. (Not that this has anything to do with pacifism directly, but I found your post incredibly interesting and wanted to respond.)

"...when volunteers generously placed the interests of others before their own by making charitable donations, another brain circuit was selectively activated: the subgenual cortex/septal region. These structures are intimately related to social attachment and bonding in other species. Altruism, the experiment suggested, was not a superior moral faculty that suppresses basic selfish urges but rather was basic to the brain, hard-wired and pleasurable.[16]"

What are you trying to do? This is something like a professor would say. Don't be scaring me with your smart talk!

What do you think our ancestors, living on the savannah, would make of your pacifist approach to agressors? On evolutionary time scales, that was a short time ago.

I am from Mississippi, and my people do not come from Georgia! I do not know which ancestors you are talking about, how long ago you mean to have us travel back in time, or if the savannah is really in Africa (I am trying to remember my world geography). If you are talking about some long ago and almost human ancestor, we have to take a break from the pacifism discussion for a moment.

First, and this is really important, I am not opposed to evolutionary discussions, and I would never state that evolution is a heathen myth. What evolution is, to me and my understanding, is an idea or a guess concerning how what is came to be from what was. As long as we discuss it as a possibility and not a guarantee, I have no problems with it at all. If you intend for it to be taken as a guarantee and a basis for our pacifism discussion, we are not going to get anywhere.

Secondly, I do not know that the ancestors living on the savannah would have been opposed to pacifism. Aggressors might have been uncommon, nonexistent, or predisposed to being aggressive only with the aggressive.

Intellectually, I know my life would be a lot easier if I were to be single, child free, as opposed to having a family and kids. Why go through all that effort? Because it feels right, I guess. I know I would risk life and limb for my family.

Thank you for responding. I both understand and share your feelings on the matter, and if not for my Christian faith, I would likely be right there with you.

To me, the curious aspect of your position is that it requires life, your life, to have any value. Your family is valuable to you because of you. Without your life, they are valueless to you. This sounded so sure in my mind, but seeing it written out is a different story. I hope some of what I am meaning is being conveyed.

What I am getting at is why is your life not the most valuable? Without it, nothing else can have value to you. Altruism, if you care to put it there, does not seem to explain how you can perceive a value that you cannot be a part of. Is it that you would rather be dead and experience nothing than to live experiencing the pain of having lost and/or not defended your family? If that is the case, would your motive not be one of egoism rather than altruism?

 

[Davian]

Easier perhaps, but easy would not necessarily mean better, unless one was defined to include the other.

One would have to ask a relativist on that one.

First, what you call an evolved trait seems to be more of a personal opinion to me.

What you call a religion seems to be more like wishful thinking to me. But lets not go there yet.

I reference peer-reviewed science when I can, and did, in my previous post. This is not 'opinion', but knowledge gained from scientific methodology.

I can see how it might help a particular group to be altruistic, but I think it would have been more beneficial to the group that learned to take advantage of the altruists. They would have reaped all the benefits without suffering any of the costs. Secondly, groups would not have been required to think that having more babies survive to child-bearing age was necessarily beneficial or desirable. There is nothing in procreation or the continuing of a species that makes it inherently or objectively good. (Not that this has anything to do with pacifism directly, but I found your post incredibly interesting and wanted to respond.)

Yes, there could be those that exploit the altruistic behaviour of others within the group, but remember that the groups are in competition with each other. If the selfish behaviour of individuals impacts the health of the group, the group may not survive. The evolutionary 'win' goes to the group whose babies survive. That's all that matters.

What are you trying to do? This is something like a professor would say. Don't be scaring me with your smart talk!

Science is a good thing. How's that computer and internet connection working for you?

I am from Mississippi, and my people do not come from Georgia! I do not know which ancestors you are talking about, how long ago you mean to have us travel back in time, or if the savannah is really in Africa (I am trying to remember my world geography). If you are talking about some long ago and almost human ancestor, we have to take a break from the pacifism discussion for a moment.

I brought up the evolutionary references to support my position. I was waiting to see your response; I will comment on pacifism in a separate post as time allows.

First, and this is really important, I am not opposed to evolutionary discussions, and I would never state that evolution is a heathen myth.

The scientific theory of evolution is better evidenced and supported than gravitational theory.

Would you say that the Earth is pulled around the sun by angels, and that's what stops it from flying off into deep space?

What evolution is, to me and my understanding, is an idea or a guess concerning how what is came to be from what was. As long as we discuss it as a possibility and not a guarantee, I have no problems with it at all. If you intend for it to be taken as a guarantee and a basis for our pacifism discussion, we are not going to get anywhere.

No, it was just to support my comments. And I agree, science does not do guarantees, but the other methods of exploring reality have not worked out well.

Secondly, I do not know that the ancestors living on the savannah would have been opposed to pacifism. Aggressors might have been uncommon, nonexistent, or predisposed to being aggressive only with the aggressive.

I see pacifism in social animals, such as ourselves, is a good thing (survival, more babies). We have to get along, particularly when times are tight and resources are scarce. It may have been the advantage over the other hominid species that helped us survive where others went extinct.

Thank you for responding. I both understand and share your feelings on the matter, and if not for my Christian faith, I would likely be right there with you.

To me, the curious aspect of your position is that it requires life, your life, to have any value. Your family is valuable to you because of you. Without your life, they are valueless to you. This sounded so sure in my mind, but seeing it written out is a different story. I hope some of what I am meaning is being conveyed.

What I am getting at is why is your life not the most valuable? Without it, nothing else can have value to you.

My family - my children - is what gives me value. Without them, I would be just chewing up resources on this planet.

That is not to say that I don't enjoy the love of a good woman, fast cars, and chocolate (I never developed a taste for alcohol). Life is good, in that respect, and far better than the alternative.

Altruism, if you care to put it there, does not seem to explain how you can perceive a value that you cannot be a part of.

Of course there is more to it that just altruism.

Of what value is there in providing the best that I can for my children? To have them do good in school (Honor roll students!)? To prepare them to be functional, contributing members of society?

In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, life is about making more life. Protecting life. Nurturing it. Who am I to argue with a biological imperative?

Is it that you would rather be dead and experience nothing than to live experiencing the pain of having lost and/or not defended your family? If that is the case, would your motive not be one of egoism rather than altruism?

Perhaps you are projecting, as you have lost me there. "Risk life and limb" is not "throw my life away". In the absence of absolute rights and wrongs, you do what you think is best in the heat of the moment. Luckily, for me, those moments have been few.

Not that I believe in luck.

 

[quatona]

Hi Max, self-professing pacifist here.

Two, non-Christians, especially those who do not believe in any type of afterlife or existence beyond death, do you value your life above all else?

No.

If not, why not?

I guess I don´t even feel that "life" is a value in itself. I´m more concerned with quality of life.
I don´t know how to justify my core values. What sort of reasoning would you like to hear?

 

[Max S Cherry]

One would have to ask a relativist on that one.

What you call a religion seems to be more like wishful thinking to me. But lets not go there yet.

I look forward to going there. I am happy to say that Christianity is exactly wishful believing rather than wishful thinking. Thinking led me to Christ, but it is believing that keeps me with Him.

I reference peer-reviewed science when I can, and did, in my previous post. This is not 'opinion', but knowledge gained from scientific methodology.

What you call knowledge is what I call opinion. Without certainty, knowledge is experience, and experience is limited to the perception of the one perceiving. I call that opinion. If it can be proven, it can be called knowledge, and if it cannot be proven, it is opinion.

Yes, there could be those that exploit the altruistic behaviour of others within the group, but remember that the groups are in competition with each other. If the selfish behaviour of individuals impacts the health of the group, the group may not survive. The evolutionary 'win' goes to the group whose babies survive. That's all that matters.

If the altruistic behavior of individuals impacts the health of the group, the group also may not survive, but honestly, I do not see the value of the group or the value of the group's survival. Probably the reason for this is that I do not see that the evolutionary win is actually winning anything. Yay, my group gets to continue and evolve! Big deal. I am still dead in a few years. There is no value that continues beyond my life.

Science is a good thing. How's that computer and internet connection working for you?

Actually, the "k" is sticking, and the connection speed is a bit depressing considering the cost! I am not opposed to science at all. I have the education to enter into discussions that I lack the desire to enter. I prefer hearing (seeing and reading actually) people tell me what they think and believe to hearing the views of communities, be they academic or religious.

I brought up the evolutionary references to support my position. I was waiting to see your response; I will comment on pacifism in a separate post as time allows.

Take your time. I look forward to it.

The scientific theory of evolution is better evidenced and supported than gravitational theory.

Would you say that the Earth is pulled around the sun by angels, and that's what stops it from flying off into deep space?

Honestly? The theory of evolution is better evidenced? Not a chance. We are discussing a theory that necessitates guessing about each and every aspect of it. Bones that look familiar or similar to others do not indicate any relation. We have no way to determine how old anything really is, and the older it seems to be the less reliable our guess becomes. Any apparent evolutionary shift that man has witnessed could be no more than a random occurrence, something that has happened for the first time in history, or the work of God's own hands. The theory of evolution is opinion piled on top of opinion, and yes, Christianity is as well.

I would not say what is pulling us around the sun. I do not think that angels are doing it, but I believe that angels can go unseen. For that matter, I am unconcerned how we get around the big bright looking thing in the sky, and I do not care if we go spinning out into deep space. I believe that whatever happens will happen according to God's divine plan, and I think that if whatever happens will happen precisely as it is going to happen with or without my concern.

No, it was just to support my comments. And I agree, science does not do guarantees, but the other methods of exploring reality have not worked out well.

I am all for exploring reality, and science is as good a way to explore it as any that I am familiar with.

I see pacifism in social animals, such as ourselves, is a good thing (survival, more babies). We have to get along, particularly when times are tight and resources are scarce. It may have been the advantage over the other hominid species that helped us survive where others went extinct.

Excellent.

My family - my children - is what gives me value. Without them, I would be just chewing up resources on this planet.

That is not to say that I don't enjoy the love of a good woman, fast cars, and chocolate (I never developed a taste for alcohol). Life is good, in that respect, and far better than the alternative.

You perceive your value to be given only by your children, and I am taking that you have this perception due to your view of the value you give evolutionary wins. This is your view, and I am not going to speak against it. I will say that, to me, it seems odd that you view your own value in terms of something that does not affect you at all. The evolutionary win will happen or not happen, and you will have no knowledge of how it turned out. I may not agree with your view, but I can commend your dedication to the species!

Of course there is more to it that just altruism.

Of what value is there in providing the best that I can for my children? To have them do good in school (Honor roll students!)? To prepare them to be functional, contributing members of society?

Congratulations on the smart offspring! If I am understanding your view correctly, I do not see any inherent value in educating your children beyond that needed to breed and maintain the life of their own children. Maybe it is to help beat out the other groups. I really do not know.

In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, life is about making more life. Protecting life. Nurturing it. Who am I to argue with a biological imperative?

Why would it be a biological imperative to make more of something that must live in a finite amount of space? It seems to be directly opposed to evolutionary aims, unless we evolve to become smaller or more efficient creatures needing less space to live.

Perhaps you are projecting, as you have lost me there. "Risk life and limb" is not "throw my life away". In the absence of absolute rights and wrongs, you do what you think is best in the heat of the moment. Luckily, for me, those moments have been few.

Risking life and limb is at least risking throwing your life away if there is nothing more valuable than yourself. You do not see the self as the source of value, so you obviously do not agree. I do not see the self as the source of value either, so I agree with you. Risking life and limb for another is precisely what I think we should do, and is the reason for my pacifism.

In those heat of the moment moments, I am afraid of my reaction, because even though I believe in absolute rights and wrongs, I do not know what I would do now. In the past, I have made decisions that I pray to not repeat.

Not that I believe in luck.

Finally something that we can completely agree on. I do not believe in luck either!

 

[Max S Cherry]

Hi Max, self-professing pacifist here.

Hello to you, Quatona.

No.

Thank you for answering.

I guess I don´t even feel that "life" is a value in itself. I´m more concerned with quality of life.
I don´t know how to justify my core values. What sort of reasoning would you like to hear?

Yes, but does the quality of life not depend on life? Can there be quality of life without life for a person who does not believe in any existence after death? To me, it does not seem so. It seems that such a person would have to base any valuation on his own life. I understand valuing the quality of life, but I do not understand it apart from your life.

How do you separate any value from your life, as one who thinks or believes that there is nothing beyond death? I mean how can you say that quality of life is more valuable than life? I can see that one might not want to live if life were considered more painful than death. Even nothingness can seem to be an improvement when faced with torturous pain, but in that case, it seems to be the value of the life that is weighed against death. It seems reasonable that the deliberation would be that "right now I am in pain and my quality of life is low, but if I live long enough I might get out of this pain and have my quality of life rise." That seems to value life above quality of life.

Also, if you do value the quality of life above life or all else, is it not valuing your perception of quality of life? If it is, would that make it valuing yourself? Yes, I am having a difficult time separating the self from value.

In the hypothetical situations my family posed to me, I was asked to defend my position that killing was wrong in any circumstance, so I would like to ask you the same questions.

1. Do you think killing is always wrong?

2. If you think it is always wrong, why?

3. If you think killing could be right at least some of the time, why? I asking under what circumstances might it be right. In self-defense? In defense of a loved one? In defense of one you perceive as being innocent?

I am curious as to how you feel or think on the issues.

 

[Davian]

Pacifism is a new concept for me, but as a Christian, I believe it is the only course Christ made available to me. I would like to know how others feel about the issue. I think it is only natural for non-Christians (unless they belong to a faith or world view similar in this respect) to disagree, and if there is no life after death, I think it is only natural to want to protect this life at all costs.

The following is copied from the forum I originally posted it:
"I am from the Great and Glorious Southern State of Mississippi, and I have never rebuked anyone for calling me a redneck. One of the most cherished principles I grew up believing was that killing to defend myself was only trumped in righteousness by killing in defense of my loved ones. I add that information, because it seems to me that some think that Scripture is twisted to suit a person's individual preference and to add support to the beliefs that person already possesses. While that is certainly true in some cases, I have never "wanted" to be a pacifist, and it is against every grain of my person that I now find myself exactly that. My understanding of Christianity does not allow any other position, and I can guarantee you all that I have not arrived at this position because I wanted to be here. I believe (I cannot say that I think this) that I was led here by the Holy Spirit, and I believe that the Holy Spirit speaks to our hearts and guides us where He wants us to go. Am I sure of it? Absolutely not.

Are there other areas in your life where you make decisions in this manner? Employment, investments, buying a used car?

I see where you say "My understanding of Christianity does not allow any other position", which seems in contradiction to your (unfalsifiable) claim (that your god wants you to be a pacifist) that you are absolutely not sure about.

Which is it?

Upon discovering pacifism, I made mention of it at the Round Table (it is my parents' dinner table where my family gathers for Sunday dinners...and no, it is not round) to get the opinions of my relatives. I stated that I believed war to be wrong (I use "wrong" to mean "sinful"), because war is the business of killing. I was asked if I believed all killing to be wrong, and I answered that I did. I was given the following two hypotheticals:

Hypo #1:
I and my family (wife and daughter) are enjoying a nice evening at home when a masked bandit(s) comes in and states his(their) plans to rape, kill, and rob us all. I have means of defending us from the intrusion, but due to the nature of my means, I cannot merely wound but must kill to defend (imagine an insta-kill gun). Furthermore, due to circumstances, I cannot disarm the attacker(s), and they will not listen to reasoning. What would I do?

My response:
I have no option. As I understand it, Christ left me no option. Of course, I am going to die or be seriously wounded in the first contact of the invasion as I will not stand by and let anyone harm my wife and/or daughter. Of course, I am going to throw myself between my family and their attacker(s), but in the end, evil will prevail. I know this just as I know that, in the end of this world and this age, evil will prevail. I choose to pray for my attacker(s), and I pray for my family and for myself. I say that I have acted in accordance with Christ's instructions; I have loved my neighbor; and I have done as I would have done to me.

Why pray? Would not your God be aware of the situation you are in?

Part of my reasoning here is that my wife, my daughter, and I are all Christians, and our physical death is nothing but a formality. It is going to happen, and the issues of when it happens and how it happens are not to be my chief concerns. I have been given a set of parameters within which I may live, and to live outside those parameters is to sin.

I am curious, since death is merely a formality, do these 'parameters' allow for you to participate in high-risk experimental surgery, or drug treatments, for the benefit of others? Do you look both ways prior to crossing the street?

If I have to take a certain step to save a life and if that step is sinful, saving that life is sinful. I cannot judge people. That's the rule, but I can judge situations. If a person tells me his intention to rape, kill, and rob me, I cannot judge him to be a non-Christian, but I can rest certain in the knowledge that my family is Christian. Can I kill a man and possibly send him to hell to prevent him from killing my family and sending us to heaven? Does it even make sense that I should want to do that? Is it Christian to do that in light of the fact that Christ left heaven, came to earth, and was killed to save us all from hell? And that we are to be Christ-like or one-who-lives-in-Christ seems to add to the prohibition.

Hypo #2:
My family took my meaning a little there, but then added a "greater good" issue to it. Now, after the intruder(s) have raped, killed, and robbed my Christian family, the bandit(s) set their sights on another family, and this is a family of non-Christians without the means for either defending themselves or disarming the bandit(s). The bandit(s) rape, kill, and rob this family, and they go on to do the same to countless other non-Christians condemning them all to an eternity in hell. In the end, the bandit(s) die rich, famous, and full of years, and he (they) go straight to hell.

It is my understanding that raping, killing, and robbery is no barrier to entering heaven. Is that not so? The rapist that tortures and kills but accepts the divinity of Jesus has a chance at heaven, but their victim(s), who may have actually abandoned their faith in that same event, does not?

I could have saved all those extra people and gave them additional time to discover God's mercy and perhaps be saved by killing the intruder(s) when I had the chance. Sure, he (they) would (might) have gone to hell, but it was where he (they) ended up eventually anyways. How do I feel about that?

My response:
This is where a distinction between Direct and Indirect consequences arises, and in “greater good” discussions, it seems to me to be very important. If I kill a non-Christian, I am willingly participating in sending a person to hell. That is clear. His going to hell is a direct consequence of my action. If I fail to kill him and if he goes on to kill a hundred more non-Christians, I am indirectly responsible (in part) for sending them to hell. Are they the same thing? No.

I am responsible for what I do, and I am held accountable for my actions alone. There is no blood on my hands, because I failed to kill someone. The blood is on the person's hands who committed the act. The reason I believe that God judges us solely on our actions and not on the actions that our actions allow is because I believe that God judges us by the rules He created for Himself. It is the reason why greater good issues should probably never be issues.

Is God responsible for evil? As far as that goes, what is evil? Evil is sin, and sin is evil. Choose either word, and the meaning is the same. Evil/sin is living/acting in opposition to the will of God. Where did evil come from? Did Satan create evil? No. Did God? No. God created beings and endowed them with the ability to choose to do His will. The beings chose to not do His will, and evil was born. God was indirectly responsible for evil because He created the circumstances in which evil arose, but God did not create evil. God created Good, and God gave beings the ability to choose Good. The result of these two things was evil.

This is the reason why I think it is a sin to kill someone in defense of self or others, and it is the reason why it is not a sin to fail to kill someone who will(might) kill someone else. I find Christ’s insistence that we love, forgive, and suffer to be primarily for the good of others that they might seek Him rather than just for our own benefit. As Christians, we are saved, and if we claim to love, forgive, and suffer in the tradition of Christ, we do our faith an injustice when we kill (even in the defense of self or others) as this seems to indicate a lack of conviction on our part.

___________________________________________

So that is what I posted in the other forum, and I did not find anyone willing to discuss the matter beyond a few posts. What I want to know is two fold:

One, Christians do you feel the same way, or do you believe that taking a life is sometimes okay or even required? If you believe that it is okay, what verses did you use to develop that belief?
...

My understanding of the bible is that it is a big book of multiple choice. You can always find something to support your position. Does not that book have a lot of violence in it? What about that flood story? Did all those animals, families, children, have to drown like that? Was your god trying to make a point?

To speak specifically to your pacifism topic, it would seem to me that you can take such a position, with little consequence. The likelihood of your hypotheticals actually occurring is statistically low. It is like rejecting vaccines, but benefiting from the herd immunity; you are benefiting from being in a group, so you as an individual can exhibit behaviour that might take you out of the gene pool in short order in other circumstances. You are just trying to justify it with unfalsifiable religious claims.

 

[Davian]

I look forward to going there. I am happy to say that Christianity is exactly wishful believing rather than wishful thinking.

Just not in any way that you can demonstrate.

Thinking led me to Christ, but it is believing that keeps me with Him.

If you think that preaching at me is going to be productive, we are not going to get anywhere.

What you call knowledge is what I call opinion. Without certainty, knowledge is experience, and experience is limited to the perception of the one perceiving. I call that opinion. If it can be proven, it can be called knowledge, and if it cannot be proven, it is opinion.

Then you have created a false dichotomy. While science cannot prove that the earth rotates and orbits the sun, it can determine and measure it to a high degree of certainty. This is not 'opinion'.

If the altruistic behavior of individuals impacts the health of the group, the group also may not survive, but honestly, I do not see the value of the group or the value of the group's survival. Probably the reason for this is that I do not see that the evolutionary win is actually winning anything. Yay, my group gets to continue and evolve! Big deal. I am still dead in a few years. There is no value that continues beyond my life.

Evolutionary theory does not comment on the value of the individual. It is not about individuals.

Try looking at evolution from the perspective of a gene.

"From the gene-centred view follows that the more two individuals are genetically related, the more sense (at the level of the genes) it makes for them to behave selflessly with each other. Therefore the concept is especially good at explaining many forms of altruism, regardless of a common misuse of the term along the lines of a selfishness gene."

The Selfish Gene - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Actually, the "k" is sticking, and the connection speed is a bit depressing considering the cost! I am not opposed to science at all. I have the education to enter into discussions that I lack the desire to enter. I prefer hearing (seeing and reading actually) people tell me what they think and believe to hearing the views of communities, be they academic or religious.

Take your time. I look forward to it.

Honestly? The theory of evolution is better evidenced? Not a chance. We are discussing a theory that necessitates guessing about each and every aspect of it. Bones that look familiar or similar to others do not indicate any relation. We have no way to determine how old anything really is, and the older it seems to be the less reliable our guess becomes. Any apparent evolutionary shift that man has witnessed could be no more than a random occurrence, something that has happened for the first time in history, or the work of God's own hands. The theory of evolution is opinion piled on top of opinion,

Where did you get this straw man of the theory of evolution?

Gravitational theorists are still working out their unified theory. Evolutionists have theirs, with the discovery of DNA.

and yes, Christianity is as well.

Interesting. Others here have claimed otherwise.

I would not say what is pulling us around the sun. I do not think that angels are doing it, but I believe that angels can go unseen. For that matter, I am unconcerned how we get around the big bright looking thing in the sky, and I do not care if we go spinning out into deep space. I believe that whatever happens will happen according to God's divine plan, and I think that if whatever happens will happen precisely as it is going to happen with or without my concern.

So why concern yourself with anything? Why not just wait to die?

I am all for exploring reality, and science is as good a way to explore it as any that I am familiar with.

If you have a methodology that you think might be more reliable, please present it.

Excellent.

You perceive your value to be given only by your children, and I am taking that you have this perception due to your view of the value you give evolutionary wins. This is your view, and I am not going to speak against it. I will say that, to me, it seems odd that you view your own value in terms of something that does not affect you at all. The evolutionary win will happen or not happen, and you will have no knowledge of how it turned out. I may not agree with your view, but I can commend your dedication to the species!

I am open to other viewpoints, where they be shown to be of significance (deities that are indistinguishable from nothing need not apply).

Congratulations on the smart offspring! If I am understanding your view correctly, I do not see any inherent value in educating your children beyond that needed to breed and maintain the life of their own children. Maybe it is to help beat out the other groups. I really do not know.

I wish for my children to be able to follow their desires, which may be in the form of an interesting job, with decent pay, or time to travel, etc., to live, love, and if they want, have babies. In this society, and economy, a good education will help them on their way.

I want more for my children than for them just to procreate.

Why would it be a biological imperative to make more of something that must live in a finite amount of space? It seems to be directly opposed to evolutionary aims, unless we evolve to become smaller or more efficient creatures needing less space to live.

The biological imperative of life is to create more life. There is no such thing as an "evolutionary aim" (where do you get these ideas?).

As a species, our descendants are those that have parents that survived to have babies. And so on.

Risking life and limb is at least risking throwing your life away if there is nothing more valuable than yourself. You do not see the self as the source of value, so you obviously do not agree. I do not see the self as the source of value either, so I agree with you. Risking life and limb for another is precisely what I think we should do, and is the reason for my pacifism.

How would a pacifist risk life and limb for another?

In those heat of the moment moments, I am afraid of my reaction, because even though I believe in absolute rights and wrongs, I do not know what I would do now. In the past, I have made decisions that I pray to not repeat.

What are these absolute rights and wrongs? Don't bother, if all you are going to do is the old "Do you think killing/raping/etc is always wrong?" schtick.

Finally something that we can completely agree on. I do not believe in luck either!

I like to say, I do not believe in karma, but I act like I do.

 

[Elioenai26]

Scientifically, I will put it down to an evolved trait, altruism. Individuals or groups that favoured this trait would be at an advantage (more babies surviving to child-bearing age) than those that didn't. The effect would only have to be small.

This is quite fascinating indeed! And to think, I just recently engaged in discussion with an atheist who believed that altruism was an evil doctrine!

That aside, tell me, the egoist who has received his "egoistic evolved trait" from natural selection, is he less evolved, more evolved, or on equal grounds with you with regards to his utility? And why?

 

[Davian]

This is quite fascinating indeed! And to think, I just recently engaged in discussion with an atheist who believed that altruism was an evil doctrine!

I was recently engaged in discussion with an atheist that believed that Earth was visited by extraterrestrials over a thousand years ago, citing evidence in the form of "Precolombian Airplane Models" fashioned out of gold, found in dig sites.

What's your point?

That aside, tell me, the egoist who has received his "egoistic evolved trait" from natural selection, is he less evolved, more evolved, or on equal grounds with you with regards to his utility? And why?

Your question is nonsensical. Where did you get the idea that organisms are 'more' or 'less' evolved? Can you provide a reference for this? Perhaps in a new thread - do try to keep the derails of others' threads to a minimum.

 

[Max S Cherry]

Are there other areas in your life where you make decisions in this manner? Employment, investments, buying a used car?

In what manner precisely?

I see where you say "My understanding of Christianity does not allow any other position", which seems in contradiction to your (unfalsifiable) claim (that your god wants you to be a pacifist) that you are absolutely not sure about.

Which is it?

I do not see the contradiction. My understanding of Christianity is a belief, and it is not subject to any requirement of proof. I can be unsure of something and still believe it to be true. That is the job of belief.

Why pray? Would not your God be aware of the situation you are in?

Prayer can be for many things. Plus, it makes me feel better.

I am curious, since death is merely a formality, do these 'parameters' allow for you to participate in high-risk experimental surgery, or drug treatments, for the benefit of others? Do you look both ways prior to crossing the street?

I do not see why I could not participate in high-risk experimental surgery or drug treatments. Yes, I guard my life because it is important, but that does not mean that a bus will not hit me if God wants it to happen.

It is my understanding that raping, killing, and robbery is no barrier to entering heaven. Is that not so? The rapist that tortures and kills but accepts the divinity of Jesus has a chance at heaven, but their victim(s), who may have actually abandoned their faith in that same event, does not?

I do not claim to know all the sins that will keep a person out of heaven, and I do not know the limits of forgiveness. If you are saying that the rapist, murderer, or thief repents after the act, yes he can still get to heaven. If you are saying that he is already a Christian while committing the acts, I find that unlikely, but I will not judge it. If the victim abandons their faith in the event, the tragedy is not the murder but the lost of a soul.

My understanding of the bible is that it is a big book of multiple choice. You can always find something to support your position. Does not that book have a lot of violence in it? What about that flood story? Did all those animals, families, children, have to drown like that? Was your god trying to make a point?

I am not a Jew. The Old Testament is one thing, but I base my life on the teachings of Christ.

To speak specifically to your pacifism topic, it would seem to me that you can take such a position, with little consequence. The likelihood of your hypotheticals actually occurring is statistically low. It is like rejecting vaccines, but benefiting from the herd immunity; you are benefiting from being in a group, so you as an individual can exhibit behaviour that might take you out of the gene pool in short order in other circumstances. You are just trying to justify it with unfalsifiable religious claims.

I am not sure why you use the word "unfalsifiable" when we are talking about religious matters. I assumed that was understood, so it seems redundant.

My hypotheticals are unlikely, and for that, I am thankful. In my original post, I clearly stated that I was not trying to justify my pacifism, but you apparently either did not read that or did not believe it. My nature is opposed to pacifism, but the teachings of Christ tell me that I should be a pacifist.

I do not need to know why I am a pacifist or why you think I am wrong for being a pacifist. I asked whether you are a pacifist and the reasons for your view.

 

[quatona]

Hi again, Max,

Yes, but does the quality of life not depend on life? Can there be quality of life without life for a person who does not believe in any existence after death?

Of course existence is a prerequisite for existence´s quality.
If there´s nobody existing they can´t have quality to their existence.
However, this doesn´t require me to consider existence (life) a quality in itself. I might just decide to make the best of it now that I (or someone else) exist(s).

To me, it does not seem so. It seems that such a person would have to base any valuation on his own life.

I have no idea what leads you to this conclusion. It is alien to me.

How do you separate any value from your life, as one who thinks or believes that there is nothing beyond death?

Just like, say, I might be pretty indifferent about playing chess, but once I (have to) play it, I´ll adopt chess-related values/strategies. Doesn´t necessarily mean I value chess.

I mean how can you say that quality of life is more valuable than life? I can see that one might not want to live if life were considered more painful than death. Even nothingness can seem to be an improvement when faced with torturous pain, but in that case, it seems to be the value of the life that is weighed against death. It seems reasonable that the deliberation would be that "right now I am in pain and my quality of life is low, but if I live long enough I might get out of this pain and have my quality of life rise." That seems to value life above quality of life.

Yes, if you feel you can compare non-existence to existence (as sort of comparing to states) I understand why you would look at it this way.
For me, however, non-existence isn´t a state. It´s just nothing. It´s not better or worse than anything. It´s just nothing.

Also, if you do value the quality of life above life or all else, is it not valuing your perception of quality of life? If it is, would that make it valuing yourself? Yes, I am having a difficult time separating the self from value.

Sure my values are my values. These my values will die when I die. I am not separating my self from my values.
Existence is the frame of reference within which my values make sense to me. It would be fallacious to carry those values outside this frame of reference, like when comparing life to non-life.

In the hypothetical situations my family posed to me, I was asked to defend my position that killing was wrong in any circumstance, so I would like to ask you the same questions.

1. Do you think killing is always wrong?

I´m not dealing in moral rights or wrongs (see my sig-line).
To borrow the words of Marshal Rosenberg (paraphrased from memory):
If you by all means want to resort to violence, you are free to do it. Just be aware that everybody involved will pay a high price for it.

2. If you think it is always wrong, why?

I disapprove of violence because it makes the life of everyone involved more miserable.

3. If you think killing could be right at least some of the time, why? I asking under what circumstances might it be right. In self-defense? In defense of a loved one? In defense of one you perceive as being innocent?

I wouldn´t recommend violence under any circumstances.

I am curious as to how you feel or think on the issues.

Thanks for asking. Feel free to ask additional questions.

 

[Elioenai26]

I was recently engaged in discussion with an atheist that believed that Earth was visited by extraterrestrials over a thousand years ago, citing evidence in the form of "Precolombian Airplane Models" fashioned out of gold, found in dig sites.

What's your point?

Your question is nonsensical. Where did you get the idea that organisms are 'more' or 'less' evolved? Can you provide a reference for this? Perhaps in a new thread - do try to keep the derails of others' threads to a minimum.

Let me rephrase my question.

How do you account for some people being ethical egoists and some being altruists like yourself?

 

[Elioenai26]

I´m not dealing in moral rights or wrongs (see my sig-line).

Since you do not deal in moral rights or wrongs, I would be enthralled to hear your take on Adam Lanza and the Sandy Hook Massacre.

To borrow the words of Marshal Rosenberg (paraphrased from memory):
If you by all means want to resort to violence, you are free to do it. Just be aware that everybody involved will pay a high price for it.

It is quite evident that Adam Lanza was willing to pay the price, so tell me, are we warranted in saying that what this young man did was wrong?

I disapprove of violence because it makes the life of everyone involved more miserable.

Ted Bundy received great pleasure from violently abducting women and killing them. And since he usually killed them without much delay, they died quickly. Now correct me if I am wrong, but you maintain that when we die that we just cease to exist, is this correct? If so, then if Ted killed a young prostitute who had no family and was all alone in the world, no one to cry for her or mourn her loss when she died, what would your view be of what he did?

 

[Max S Cherry]

Just not in any way that you can demonstrate.

Demonstrate a belief? I can demonstrate that I have the belief, and I believe that I have done that already.

If you think that preaching at me is going to be productive, we are not going to get anywhere.

If you think that telling you what I do is preaching at you, we have a different understanding of preaching.

Then you have created a false dichotomy. While science cannot prove that the earth rotates and orbits the sun, it can determine and measure it to a high degree of certainty. This is not 'opinion'.

Interesting, but at least you are partially correct. It is a dichotomy, but it is not necessarily false. Since science cannot prove that the earth rotates and orbits the sun, the best it can hope to do is try to determine and measure it to the best degree of certainty it can. What it cannot know and what makes it an opinion is that it will never know it for certain. What you call a high degree of certainty is a belief in the accuracy of something that you cannot test. In other words, it is an opinion.

Evolutionary theory does not comment on the value of the individual. It is not about individuals.

Why are we talking about it?

Try looking at evolution from the perspective of a gene.

This is something that I would not know how to begin, and I cannot see how anyone else could either. If it were possible to do so, what would the value of it be?

"From the gene-centred view follows that the more two individuals are genetically related, the more sense (at the level of the genes) it makes for them to behave selflessly with each other. Therefore the concept is especially good at explaining many forms of altruism, regardless of a common misuse of the term along the lines of a selfishness gene."

How is the related to pacifism and/or your reasons for supporting or opposing it? If evolutionary theory cannot address the individual, why do you continue to bring it up?

Where did you get this straw man of the theory of evolution?

A straw man? Really. If I stated something incorrectly, please tell me what it is, and we can work from there.

Gravitational theorists are still working out their unified theory. Evolutionists have theirs, with the discovery of DNA.

Evolutionists have their what? Unified theory? Congratulations. They now have a theory. I have some too.

Interesting. Others here have claimed otherwise.

Such will happen.

So why concern yourself with anything? Why not just wait to die?

I am just waiting to die, and I feel almost certain that it will happen. I concern myself with matters of importance.

If you have a methodology that you think might be more reliable, please present it.

I said that science was as good a method as any I am familiar with.

I am open to other viewpoints, where they be shown to be of significance (deities that are indistinguishable from nothing need not apply).

What would be of significance to you? Something with a high-degree of certainty? You are talking to an agnostic here, so I have no certainty to offer.

I wish for my children to be able to follow their desires, which may be in the form of an interesting job, with decent pay, or time to travel, etc., to live, love, and if they want, have babies. In this society, and economy, a good education will help them on their way.

I wish the same for them.

I want more for my children than for them just to procreate.

I am glad to hear that.

The biological imperative of life is to create more life. There is no such thing as an "evolutionary aim" (where do you get these ideas?).

Why is it imperative? Evolution has no aim? It is not striving for something?

As a species, our descendants are those that have parents that survived to have babies. And so on.

Yes.

How would a pacifist risk life and limb for another?

Jumping in front of another. Defending another with peacefulness. There are many ways to risk life and limb for another.

What are these absolute rights and wrongs? Don't bother, if all you are going to do is the old "Do you think killing/raping/etc is always wrong?" schtick.

Do not bother asking me a question if you are going to also answer it. For me, an absolute right is living according to Christ's example, and an absolute wrong is the opposite.

I like to say, I do not believe in karma, but I act like I do.

Is karma "what goes around comes around?" If it is, we are still in agreement here.