Tolstoy, Jesus and you walk into a bar after a long day of talking non-resistance. Its your turn to go get a round of cold ones and you bump into a drunk patron by accident and spill his beer. His friends laugh, he gets up and faces you angrily and pulls his fist back ready to knock you out. STOP and THINK ..... How do you put into practice the theory of non-resistance as you understand it. Would Tolstoy or Jesus react differently. Continue this story in your answer.
This kind of thing has happened to me, and I can usually step back and talk folks out of it.
I wonder about my response to the guy that tried to kill me though. I knocked him down so I could escape. I feel pretty okay about that, but I'm not sure how it comports with the principle of non-resistance to evil by force.
I didn't injure him, but I was certainly physically forceful.
I don't know about Tolstoy, but I don't think Jesus would have been in my situation to begin with. And if he were, he may have had more success in talking the guy down without having to knock him down. I would have died if I had not responded aggressively; And not for the gospel either, just a random homicide. It is a difficult question. I feel like I would not hesitate to use force to protect my children (and I feel like nearly every one is sympathetic to that position), but I don't see how it works with the gospel, and this bothers me.
I would (and have) bear hugged them, strongly, and said something like "Hey, I need a hug!." Doing the unexpected, which is to NOT 'ante up' the same macho bravado, a display of power amongst cronies, can set the aggressor back on their heels. This is to be alternated with a show of emotional force, a impassioned plea to the other friends and actors around him to keep the peace.
In an instance with a shiv, I would only seek escape. If you wish to maintain Christian comportment, then the option of surprising their Egos, or their Evil Selfs, by BELLOWING and YELLING like a cave bear at the top of your lungs are debatably, out. Also, not permitted is resisting any in any form the possibly inevitable stabs and slashes by the maniac? Is the show of verbal force the same as any resistance? How is plunking down immovably in the center of a rally/riot not resistance to the will of the police officers to clear the street and disperse the people?
It would seem a strict reading of Turn the other cheek does not allow harnessing the inate fight/flight instinct, whether verbally (screaming), intellectually (mediating). or Physically (Sitting immovably, or Fighting) In fact, I read that is must be wholly repressed in order to comply with the command of Non-resistance.
Personally I find this repression of our natural instinct to protect ourselves a disgusting thought. An inhuman, rational ideal divorced from natural rules of best-practice. Witness Peacocks, Cats puffed up, etc. The best avoidance of deadly force is in a game of confidence, quickly followed by running like hell if it fails.
Two cats or dogs, might not always fight after a baring of teeth. The symbol being enough. But between two grossly mismatched opponents, (Dog & Bird) or of different species, a fight to the death.
We have agreed upon a human right (God given? or State Given? to live without fear of injury from other humans, I will not place my safety in an unknowable future, either by the Legal system or in my Everlasting life in heaven.
I place all value possible (and it IS difficult), in the Moment. If we are unable to think rationally in the heat of the moment, *then we must train ourselves* to React in a Christian manner, or as Bruce Lee, which captures your imagination more.
What do we think of the argument that if everyone practiced the principle of "non-resistance" then there would be nothing to resist? T. emphasizes that the more folks who practice this the easier it is.
While certainly not as specious as Anselm's so called "ontological argument" for the existence of God, is there something subtly wrong with it?
Is this an argument from the assumption that the individual should sacrifice his own best interest for the interest of the many? Would Jesus agree with this assumption? Should Tolstoy agree with this assumption, given the fact that we are to take one another and ourselves as uniquely appreciated children of the same Father?
In the first chapter, Tolstoy argues that while many have thought about and written on the non-resistance to evil by force, their work has been marginalized. "[...] all that has been done to by people to explain the true meaning of Christ's doctrine remains either ignored or forgotten." -1.17
Some formulation of this statement is surely true, but why? Why should it be that a central teaching of Jesus should be ignored by Christians? We can ask this beyond the principle of non-resistance as well; e.g. Why do Christians not, as a rule, renounce the accumulation of wealth and worldly goods? (etc...)
[And: What principal teachings of Jesus do Christians follow (if any)?]
So the special question is this: Why do Christians not generally follow the teaching of non-resistance to evil by force?
The general question: Why do Christians not generally follow the teachings of Christ?
Christians do not follow this mandate for many evolutionary reasons some of I will try to explain. As political power became larger in city states and nation states, revenge from governing authority has been a deterrence for other nations states to interfere. Rome was capable to establish its cultural worldview and expand its geopolitical influence through a strong military. The state of nature is open competition amoungst antagonistic actors. Competition for resources, competition for reproductive rights. Natural selection has made competitive advantage the successful recipe for millions of years before Christ arrived. Humans evolved from animals and our culture reflect this competitive arms race. Survival of National Cultural DNA and Biological DNA though force has been established long ago and we are their offspring. We are the offspring of the victors of every battle for survival that our animal ancestors have has to overcome. On a smaller scale, Parents and siblings use revenge by force on a daily basis, teaching and punishing each other for behavior modification. When a child or sibling crosses the line of behavior we tend to make a painful reminder as to the consequence of their infraction. Forgiveness has been seen as enabling bad behavior in family social order. Parents want to reproduce their cultural norms and fight child anarchy daily. ON a smaller scale psychologically humans are weak and comfortable. We avoid pain and discomfort and seek joy and pleasure. This utility makes it hard for the majority to voluntarily absorb the threat of pain and violence. Fear is hardwired in our nervous system, sympathetic nervous system is seconds away from excreting adrenaline. Adrenaline causes increased heart rate and vasodilation to the primary muscle groups. This shuts down our executive function area in our frontal cortex. We literal cant think in fear we react to protect. On a more basic level we are hungry and must eat 3 times a day. Fear of missing one meal cripples our sharing instincts. Even more subtle is the spiritual realms. Humans since the fall have had to overcome temptations from a spiritual adversary with access to our minds. Temptations usually attack the loving relationship of GOD the father with his exiled sons and daughters here on earth with doubt and guilt. The flesh mind sees violence and revenge argues against the reality of such immaterial benefits of love and forgiveness.
So I think this answers why we don't what Christ asks, simply we haven't evolved yet.
All of that surely plays into it. Fortunately for us it's more important to recognize that we are imperfect and strive after perfection than to have achieved (or have convinced ourselves that we have achieved) perfection.
What about the ruling elite? And the deliberate obfuscation of Christ's true message (which Tolstoy expounds upon like m-fing Tiresias in chapter three)?
Are they simply bound by the factors that you so eloquently outlined (and spontaneously finding themselves at the center of a superabundance of human capital), or is there something more insidious going on there? The factors you outlined provide the circumstance for the common people to seek (or at least not rebel against) the protection of the state, but do they provide sufficient condition(s) for the the existence of the state to begin with (and it's offer of protection).
legitimate authority is a monopoly of force and power, our constitution clearly states that those who want to be its elected leaders are bound by an oath to defend it from foreign and domestic threats with force. Every officer and enlisted man has to swear an oath to do the same. The rulers make it a stated claim that they are not going to practice non resistance of evil by force in the constitution! Church and state have successfully separated in our society. So I don't think they break Christ mandate, they clearly state they plan to resist with force any threat. But lets go back a few centuries when theocracies like Rome claimed to represent Christ on earth.. Absolutely they behaved with grave duplicity. to the point of making violence a form of entertainment. This violent entertainment is to be celebrated in modern times. The gladiators, in the roman coliseum killing thousands of victims has been created to a costumed the population to violence. What about our news networks feeding violence in entertainment and violence in news the only worthy priority in television and movies.
So on your second point I do think they create the fear which they promise protect us from. they are increasingly using a marketing ploy of generating demand for their services. They manufacture a problem that they supply the only good product in the market to fix global fear. Global fear of death, hunger, from an ever present enemy. Historical, this enemy has been labeled heretical like martin Luther by the church, rebels like John Locke by the monarchy, communist like Tolstoy by capitalist, the messiah like Jesus by the Jews and Romans.
But they break Christ's mandate who defend the state with force when they identify themselves as Christians right? I mean as a religious in a secular society, which many soldiers are, they suffer under a irreconcilable contradiction, if they understand the gospel at all.
Mikail: Our 'evolution' won't be complete until we are capable of embracing our whole earth, and every life-form on it, from which we have much to learn. The Christian mistake is in amplifying the idea that we are better than our current reality. Or should, will or must be. In this comparison, all Mankind is then able to devalue other humans, and kill or oppress them, by labeling them: Less than evolved. Soldiers must assuage their innate repulsion to killing by rationalizations as such. No one is a born killer, but many killers are raised to be such from day one.
I totally agree that the inertia of Violence is one of historic weight. We are on that trajectory.
Earnest: "...is there something more insidious going on there?"
I would say Tolstoy believes Idolatry. A drunkenness, and hypnotism of the raiments and life-style of the Clergy. Firstly, of social respect. Secondly, of the comforts afford by a salaried occupation. Thirdly, of the 'gifts' and prayer-payments loaded on them by the followers. Lastly, but not least, their own self-conception, which could have otherwise been humble, has not withstood the culture of Idolization. They have no reason to live as a Christian by the Gospel, when the puffed up appearance of it is more physically lucrative.
Elucid: Agree. Though I was referring to anyone in power and not just clergy. Looking back, I think I was trying to give them an out (moral disengagement).
It just is insidious to cling to the situation of "finding oneself at the center of the abundance of human capital", without reflecting responsibly on one's own moral obligation.
I'm a bit late to the party, so excuse me If my replies and questions are a week behind. I have read to Chapter 4 and wish to discuss only up till that point here.
My Question is, in Light of the following: Toltoy's paraphrase of Adin Ballou's Catechism is this:
"We ought to oppose evil by every righteous means in our power, but not by Evil."
This seems reasonable, if difficult to define (What is Evil.) in all cases. However, its the more troubling in light of what Christ actually says:
"resist not evil," do not oppose injury with injury, but rather bear repeated injury from the evil doer."
I read the "...rather bear repeated injury..." as reinforcing that strict reading that in an injurious situation, there is NO physical solution to avoid further punishment, rather, you must invite it.
In my own take, this is saying: For turning the other cheek is the LAST thing the aggressor would expect, having been raised in a culture of Eye for an Eye. This meekness will be rewarded only by God, and should not be reconciled, remunerated, or repaired by any legal means of men. Ok, fine. Idealistic, unreasonable, and cowardly, but Christian none the less.
Those who have withstood extreme torture describe 'going out of their body.' as the only mechanism of coping. Yet many a torturer believes that everyone, eventually, will 'break.' This later belief is my one and only true definition of Evil. Not punching, not squabbling, not bar-fights. But aren't all of these examples equally 'Evil' to Christians, in the eyes of God? Is there not any continuum between bad, grievous, and atrocious?
I think humans should constantly act against evil in alignment with their continuum of Evil - Good, but it is apparent that the cultures of Domination, Subversion, Control and Punishment (you know who you are) are much more extreme in their usage of Good/Evil to justify their UnGodly actions.
So my question is this, how can a rational, compassionate human utilize this command of "Non-resistance" to force without judging the situation along the continuum of 'Bad - Grevious - Atrocious.' Wouldn't that judgement be usurping God's right? We can't avoid judgement of the situation, though we may choose a weak, violent path sometimes. Why is it important to God that we allow injury to ourselves? So are morally superior and rationally inferior? Any animal's instinct is then more reasonable than us, and we are surely more evolved than animals. I read this religious evolution as devaluing everything Animal, and everything Man, in favor of everything Divine.
We will not be doing mankind any service in suffering / dying for our belief in resistance, will we? Symbolically, aren't we showing the inefficacy of violence to 'get your way.? All the glory of this perverted decision to suffer will be appreciated only by God?
I think we can't help but move along a continuum defined by our heart and reason, by our imperfect conscience and so forth. Remember that these writings inspired Ghandi's successful model of Ahimsa, as well as King's successful (but unpopular with some {e.g. Malcom X}) model of peaceful protest.
I think it is important to live into the spirit of Truth and Love, without becoming attached to a dogma or literal, letter-of-lawyeral, interpretation.
Let's not forget the radicality (and courage) of just not visiting evil with evil, of displaying lovingkindness towards the fearful, base and violent.
Elucidesign...welcome to the discussion... 1st question How to avoid judging a situation as bad...because only God can judge us... I think Tolstoy would say there is no definition of evil universally accepted. He criticizes those in power to judge as evil anything they don't particularly like. I think Jesus would say He doesn't condemn anyone for breaking the law and gently asks that you go and sin no more. My opinion is you can be vocal and request the damage to stop. And then react by defending myself... which is hard for me not to do... I am aware that this is my fears acting out. But would ask anyone who knows how to turn this off. 2nd question I dont think God wants us to injure ourselves, Christ avoided injury A LOT in the New testament. He vanished, Talked his way out arrest, and new about the betrayal. In my opinion we are all tested or tempted to defend our lives. But faith is the evidence in what you believe. He knew he was going to be resurrected. Similarly so is every Christian who has faith. God is an expert at healing people, their bodies, heart, and minds.
3rd question. I think Jesus would say dying for the belief of non resistance is the ultimate test of your faith... not one everyone can make, as Peter could not do it, Remember how after Peter would not die like he promised. After Jesus resurrected he asked him do you love me unconditionally.... Agape and then Peter cried because he only loved him conditionally...Phileo. And then Jesus gave him a position of leadership. I Think Jesus knows we cant do it either. And its OK..
4th question.
I think that every one else who believes a world without fear of violence is a better world would also appreciate this..
PS... Great questions man .. I enjoy you opinion because it helps me grow.
Tolstoy, Jesus and you walk into a bar after a long day of talking non-resistance. Its your turn to go get a round of cold ones and you bump into a drunk patron by accident and spill his beer. His friends laugh, he gets up and faces you angrily and pulls his fist back ready to knock you out. STOP and THINK ..... How do you put into practice the theory of non-resistance as you understand it. Would Tolstoy or Jesus react differently. Continue this story in your answer.
ReplyDeleteThis kind of thing has happened to me, and I can usually step back and talk folks out of it.
DeleteI wonder about my response to the guy that tried to kill me though. I knocked him down so I could escape. I feel pretty okay about that, but I'm not sure how it comports with the principle of non-resistance to evil by force.
I didn't injure him, but I was certainly physically forceful.
Do you think tolstoy or jesus would have reacted differently in your situation?
DeleteI don't know about Tolstoy, but I don't think Jesus would have been in my situation to begin with. And if he were, he may have had more success in talking the guy down without having to knock him down. I would have died if I had not responded aggressively; And not for the gospel either, just a random homicide. It is a difficult question. I feel like I would not hesitate to use force to protect my children (and I feel like nearly every one is sympathetic to that position), but I don't see how it works with the gospel, and this bothers me.
DeleteI would (and have) bear hugged them, strongly, and said something like "Hey, I need a hug!." Doing the unexpected, which is to NOT 'ante up' the same macho bravado, a display of power amongst cronies, can set the aggressor back on their heels. This is to be alternated with a show of emotional force, a impassioned plea to the other friends and actors around him to keep the peace.
DeleteIn an instance with a shiv, I would only seek escape. If you wish to maintain Christian comportment, then the option of surprising their Egos, or their Evil Selfs, by BELLOWING and YELLING like a cave bear at the top of your lungs are debatably, out. Also, not permitted is resisting any in any form the possibly inevitable stabs and slashes by the maniac? Is the show of verbal force the same as any resistance?
How is plunking down immovably in the center of a rally/riot not resistance to the will of the police officers to clear the street and disperse the people?
It would seem a strict reading of Turn the other cheek does not allow harnessing the inate fight/flight instinct, whether verbally (screaming), intellectually (mediating). or Physically (Sitting immovably, or Fighting) In fact, I read that is must be wholly repressed in order to comply with the command of Non-resistance.
Personally I find this repression of our natural instinct to protect ourselves a disgusting thought. An inhuman, rational ideal divorced from natural rules of best-practice. Witness Peacocks, Cats puffed up, etc. The best avoidance of deadly force is in a game of confidence, quickly followed by running like hell if it fails.
Two cats or dogs, might not always fight after a baring of teeth. The symbol being enough. But between two grossly mismatched opponents, (Dog & Bird) or of different species, a fight to the death.
We have agreed upon a human right (God given? or State Given? to live without fear of injury from other humans, I will not place my safety in an unknowable future, either by the Legal system or in my Everlasting life in heaven.
I place all value possible (and it IS difficult), in the Moment. If we are unable to think rationally in the heat of the moment, *then we must train ourselves* to React in a Christian manner, or as Bruce Lee, which captures your imagination more.
What do we think of the argument that if everyone practiced the principle of "non-resistance" then there would be nothing to resist? T. emphasizes that the more folks who practice this the easier it is.
DeleteWhile certainly not as specious as Anselm's so called "ontological argument" for the existence of God, is there something subtly wrong with it?
Is this an argument from the assumption that the individual should sacrifice his own best interest for the interest of the many? Would Jesus agree with this assumption? Should Tolstoy agree with this assumption, given the fact that we are to take one another and ourselves as uniquely appreciated children of the same Father?
In the first chapter, Tolstoy argues that while many have thought about and written on the non-resistance to evil by force, their work has been marginalized. "[...] all that has been done to by people to explain the true meaning of Christ's doctrine remains either ignored or forgotten." -1.17
ReplyDeleteSome formulation of this statement is surely true, but why? Why should it be that a central teaching of Jesus should be ignored by Christians? We can ask this beyond the principle of non-resistance as well; e.g. Why do Christians not, as a rule, renounce the accumulation of wealth and worldly goods? (etc...)
[And: What principal teachings of Jesus do Christians follow (if any)?]
So the special question is this:
Why do Christians not generally follow the teaching of non-resistance to evil by force?
The general question:
Why do Christians not generally follow the teachings of Christ?
Christians do not follow this mandate for many evolutionary reasons some of I will try to explain. As political power became larger in city states and nation states, revenge from governing authority has been a deterrence for other nations states to interfere. Rome was capable to establish its cultural worldview and expand its geopolitical influence through a strong military. The state of nature is open competition amoungst antagonistic actors. Competition for resources, competition for reproductive rights. Natural selection has made competitive advantage the successful recipe for millions of years before Christ arrived. Humans evolved from animals and our culture reflect this competitive arms race. Survival of National Cultural DNA and Biological DNA though force has been established long ago and we are their offspring. We are the offspring of the victors of every battle for survival that our animal ancestors have has to overcome.
DeleteOn a smaller scale, Parents and siblings use revenge by force on a daily basis, teaching and punishing each other for behavior modification. When a child or sibling crosses the line of behavior we tend to make a painful reminder as to the consequence of their infraction. Forgiveness has been seen as enabling bad behavior in family social order. Parents want to reproduce their cultural norms and fight child anarchy daily.
ON a smaller scale psychologically humans are weak and comfortable. We avoid pain and discomfort and seek joy and pleasure. This utility makes it hard for the majority to voluntarily absorb the threat of pain and violence. Fear is hardwired in our nervous system, sympathetic nervous system is seconds away from excreting adrenaline. Adrenaline causes increased heart rate and vasodilation to the primary muscle groups. This shuts down our executive function area in our frontal cortex. We literal cant think in fear we react to protect.
On a more basic level we are hungry and must eat 3 times a day. Fear of missing one meal cripples our sharing instincts.
Even more subtle is the spiritual realms. Humans since the fall have had to overcome temptations from a spiritual adversary with access to our minds. Temptations usually attack the loving relationship of GOD the father with his exiled sons and daughters here on earth with doubt and guilt. The flesh mind sees violence and revenge argues against the reality of such immaterial benefits of love and forgiveness.
So I think this answers why we don't what Christ asks, simply we haven't evolved yet.
All of that surely plays into it. Fortunately for us it's more important to recognize that we are imperfect and strive after perfection than to have achieved (or have convinced ourselves that we have achieved) perfection.
DeleteWhat about the ruling elite? And the deliberate obfuscation of Christ's true message (which Tolstoy expounds upon like m-fing Tiresias in chapter three)?
Are they simply bound by the factors that you so eloquently outlined (and spontaneously finding themselves at the center of a superabundance of human capital), or is there something more insidious going on there? The factors you outlined provide the circumstance for the common people to seek (or at least not rebel against) the protection of the state, but do they provide sufficient condition(s) for the the existence of the state to begin with (and it's offer of protection).
legitimate authority is a monopoly of force and power, our constitution clearly states that those who want to be its elected leaders are bound by an oath to defend it from foreign and domestic threats with force. Every officer and enlisted man has to swear an oath to do the same. The rulers make it a stated claim that they are not going to practice non resistance of evil by force in the constitution! Church and state have successfully separated in our society. So I don't think they break Christ mandate, they clearly state they plan to resist with force any threat. But lets go back a few centuries when theocracies like Rome claimed to represent Christ on earth.. Absolutely they behaved with grave duplicity. to the point of making violence a form of entertainment. This violent entertainment is to be celebrated in modern times. The gladiators, in the roman coliseum killing thousands of victims has been created to a costumed the population to violence. What about our news networks feeding violence in entertainment and violence in news the only worthy priority in television and movies.
DeleteSo on your second point I do think they create the fear which they promise protect us from. they are increasingly using a marketing ploy of generating demand for their services. They manufacture a problem that they supply the only good product in the market to fix global fear. Global fear of death, hunger, from an ever present enemy. Historical, this enemy has been labeled heretical like martin Luther by the church, rebels like John Locke by the monarchy, communist like Tolstoy by capitalist, the messiah like Jesus by the Jews and Romans.
But they break Christ's mandate who defend the state with force when they identify themselves as Christians right? I mean as a religious in a secular society, which many soldiers are, they suffer under a irreconcilable contradiction, if they understand the gospel at all.
DeleteMikail: Our 'evolution' won't be complete until we are capable of embracing our whole earth, and every life-form on it, from which we have much to learn. The Christian mistake is in amplifying the idea that we are better than our current reality. Or should, will or must be.
DeleteIn this comparison, all Mankind is then able to devalue other humans, and kill or oppress them, by labeling them: Less than evolved. Soldiers must assuage their innate repulsion to killing by rationalizations as such. No one is a born killer, but many killers are raised to be such from day one.
I totally agree that the inertia of Violence is one of historic weight. We are on that trajectory.
Earnest: "...is there something more insidious going on there?"
DeleteI would say Tolstoy believes Idolatry. A drunkenness, and hypnotism of the raiments and life-style of the Clergy. Firstly, of social respect. Secondly, of the comforts afford by a salaried occupation. Thirdly, of the 'gifts' and prayer-payments loaded on them by the followers. Lastly, but not least, their own self-conception, which could have otherwise been humble, has not withstood the culture of Idolization.
They have no reason to live as a Christian by the Gospel, when the puffed up appearance of it is more physically lucrative.
Elucid: Agree.
DeleteThough I was referring to anyone in power and not just clergy. Looking back, I think I was trying to give them an out (moral disengagement).
It just is insidious to cling to the situation of "finding oneself at the center of the abundance of human capital", without reflecting responsibly on one's own moral obligation.
I'm a bit late to the party, so excuse me If my replies and questions are a week behind. I have read to Chapter 4 and wish to discuss only up till that point here.
ReplyDeleteMy Question is, in Light of the following:
Toltoy's paraphrase of Adin Ballou's Catechism is this:
"We ought to oppose evil by every righteous means in our power, but not by Evil."
This seems reasonable, if difficult to define (What is Evil.) in all cases. However, its the more troubling in light of what Christ actually says:
"resist not evil," do not oppose injury with injury, but rather bear repeated injury from the evil doer."
I read the "...rather bear repeated injury..." as reinforcing that strict reading that in an injurious situation, there is NO physical solution to avoid further punishment, rather, you must invite it.
In my own take, this is saying: For turning the other cheek is the LAST thing the aggressor would expect, having been raised in a culture of Eye for an Eye. This meekness will be rewarded only by God, and should not be reconciled, remunerated, or repaired by any legal means of men. Ok, fine. Idealistic, unreasonable, and cowardly, but Christian none the less.
Those who have withstood extreme torture describe 'going out of their body.' as the only mechanism of coping. Yet many a torturer believes that everyone, eventually, will 'break.' This later belief is my one and only true definition of Evil. Not punching, not squabbling, not bar-fights. But aren't all of these examples equally 'Evil' to Christians, in the eyes of God? Is there not any continuum between bad, grievous, and atrocious?
I think humans should constantly act against evil in alignment with their continuum of Evil - Good, but it is apparent that the cultures of Domination, Subversion, Control and Punishment (you know who you are) are much more extreme in their usage of Good/Evil to justify their UnGodly actions.
So my question is this, how can a rational, compassionate human utilize this command of "Non-resistance" to force without judging the situation along the continuum of 'Bad - Grevious - Atrocious.' Wouldn't that judgement be usurping God's right?
We can't avoid judgement of the situation, though we may choose a weak, violent path sometimes.
Why is it important to God that we allow injury to ourselves?
So are morally superior and rationally inferior? Any animal's instinct is then more reasonable than us, and we are surely more evolved than animals. I read this religious evolution as devaluing everything Animal, and everything Man, in favor of everything Divine.
We will not be doing mankind any service in suffering / dying for our belief in resistance, will we?
Symbolically, aren't we showing the inefficacy of violence to 'get your way.?
All the glory of this perverted decision to suffer will be appreciated only by God?
I think we can't help but move along a continuum defined by our heart and reason, by our imperfect conscience and so forth. Remember that these writings inspired Ghandi's successful model of Ahimsa, as well as King's successful (but unpopular with some {e.g. Malcom X}) model of peaceful protest.
DeleteI think it is important to live into the spirit of Truth and Love, without becoming attached to a dogma or literal, letter-of-lawyeral, interpretation.
Let's not forget the radicality (and courage) of just not visiting evil with evil, of displaying lovingkindness towards the fearful, base and violent.
Elucidesign...welcome to the discussion...
ReplyDelete1st question
How to avoid judging a situation as bad...because only God can judge us...
I think Tolstoy would say there is no definition of evil universally accepted. He criticizes those in power to judge as evil anything they don't particularly like. I think Jesus would say He doesn't condemn anyone for breaking the law and gently asks that you go and sin no more. My opinion is you can be vocal and request the damage to stop. And then react by defending myself... which is hard for me not to do... I am aware that this is my fears acting out. But would ask anyone who knows how to turn this off.
2nd question
I dont think God wants us to injure ourselves, Christ avoided injury A LOT in the New testament. He vanished, Talked his way out arrest, and new about the betrayal. In my opinion we are all tested or tempted to defend our lives. But faith is the evidence in what you believe. He knew he was going to be resurrected. Similarly so is every Christian who has faith. God is an expert at healing people, their bodies, heart, and minds.
3rd question.
I think Jesus would say dying for the belief of non resistance is the ultimate test of your faith... not one everyone can make, as Peter could not do it, Remember how after Peter would not die like he promised. After Jesus resurrected he asked him do you love me unconditionally.... Agape and then Peter cried because he only loved him conditionally...Phileo. And then Jesus gave him a position of leadership. I Think Jesus knows we cant do it either. And its OK..
4th question.
I think that every one else who believes a world without fear of violence is a better world would also appreciate this..
PS...
Great questions man ..
I enjoy you opinion because it helps me grow.