Mormon's are
not pacifists and on the contrary have a long record of supporting the military during conflicts.
«But I am
not a pacifist.
Similarly, I'm
not a pacifist, but when it comes to voluntary military interventions, I believe in a two - war maximum.
Many Christians, however, who were
not pacifist, opposed the possible use of nuclear weapons and also opposed threats to use such weapons.
Although Morrison was
not a pacifist, he supported the rights of conscientious objectors.
A «pro-life» person, if
not a pacifist, would be very reluctant to go to war, recognizing that war is not inevitable and that there is nothing in human nature that inevitably leads to war.
I am
NOT a pacifist, nor have I ever claimed to be one.
The claim that «Jesus was
not a pacifist» is an example of the fallacy of ambiguity, sometimes also referred to as equivocation, where an orator tries to build his argument on the uncertainty of words or on a term that has multiple meanings.
I am not sure how you are defining pacifist, but my opinion is that Jesus was
not a pacifist, and neither was God.
Jesus was
not a pacifist.»
Because pacifism is an abstract term and means different things to different people, the claim that «Jesus was
not a pacifist» becomes as pointless and misleading as saying «Jesus was not a liberal» or «Jesus was not a conservative.»
In his 1940 essay, «Why the Christian Church is
not Pacifist,» Reinhold Niebuhr wrote: «Nothing is more futile and pathetic than the effort of some [Christians] who find it necessary to become involved in the relativities of politics, in resistance to tyranny or in social conflict, to justify themselves by seeking to prove that Christ was also involved in these relativities, that he used whips to drive the money - changers out of the Temple...»
In the book's first chapter, «Why the Christian Church is
not Pacifist,» he argued that «the failure of the Church to espouse pacifism is not apostasy, but is derived from an understanding of the Christian Gospel which refuses simply to equate the Gospel with the «law of love.»
Papal statements and magisterial documents are unanimous in affirming that Catholic teaching is
not pacifist and that just - war doctrine is the doctrine of the Church.
Now, I am
not a pacifist (I am from Oklahoma after all.)
Set in a parallel world to ours, one populated by criminals who live by a strict set of rules, conventions, and etiquette, it is a dark fantasy of violence in which the hero isn't the pacifist, it's the guy who really loves his... Read More»
Not exact matches
For this I blame the broad and unwitting acceptance of
pacifist thinking, if
not of
pacifist conclusions.
It could be that despite his public stance, (1) Obama secretly believes that «war is
not the answer» and privately relayed his true
pacifist beliefs and commitment to unilateral military withdrawal from Afghanistan only to his «spiritual advisor,» Brian McLaren.
I am
not necessarily taking one side vs the other in this instance, but it is all too convenient to portray Christ as a weak
pacifist based on a single passage.
It's refreshing to be reminded that
not everyone who met the zealous young advocate for life in community and the Sermon on the Mount was equally impressed — Hardy Arnold, son of the founder of the
pacifist Bruderhof near Frankfurt, thought Bonhoeffer a bit of a dandy and a romantic when Bonhoeffer visited there in 1934.
They don't have to be
pacifists, they don't have to be justice warriors; I just want them to think they've got a problem with war.
You see, I am a
pacifist —
not in the sense that I do
not believe that the government has been given authority to wage war but that as a Christian, I do
not believe I should every personally seek to kill anyone for any reason.
But many
pacifists think that governments should
not go to war, and that our soldiers are perpetuating the worst evil on planet earth.
But it does show how much Biblical interpretation has changed, because the scriptural point that made them
pacifist was «thou shalt
not kill», which they felt applied to war.
Example: If I were in the military and decided I would be a
pacifist for the next year, that would
not bode well for my career path in the military or my existence in the respective branch.
Given that his ethic was
not an «ethic of principles,» it is difficult to conceive of him as a «principled
pacifist» in Yoder's sense.
Pacifists and proponents of nonviolence have to understand that the man of blood is
not excluded from the love of God.
So maybe
not all of us come out saying we're
pacifists; maybe some of us simply make more deliberate moves toward non-violence.
And PrayerPunk, Jesus was
not always the
pacifist He is often portrayed as.
The first directive is controversial, as the dominant tradition in the church has
not been
pacifist.
Jesus, as described in the gospels, was at times assertive, forceful, commanding, and far from passive or
pacifist — but
not violent.
You are
not one of those fire - breathing, wild - eyed zealots shouting into a bull - horn on the street corner, nor are you one of those dreadlock - growing, communal - living, vegetarian
pacifists.
The story illustrates Hauerwas's insistence that Christian
pacifists ought
not think that being nonviolent will make the world safer; it might well make it more violent.
Pacifists embrace
not nonviolent resistance but nonresistance.
It is
not a propitious time to be a
pacifist in the United States.
If the
pacifist position were correct, it would seem logical that throughout history God would either prevent war, or at least
not take sides in human conflicts, but that is
not the case.
And I am
not saying God is a
pacifist.
In a pair of particularly venomous columns National Journal editor and Washington Post columnist Michael Kelly
not only derided antiwar protesters as those «unhappy people who like to yell about the awfulness of «Amerika» or international corporations or rich people or people who drive large cars,» but he also attacked
pacifists as «liars,» «frauds» and «hypocrites,» whose views are «objectively pro-terrorist» and «evil.»
J. Denny Weaver, professor of religion at Bluffton College (a Mennonite college in Ohio), puts it this way in his article «
Pacifist Response to 9 - 11»: «It is unfair to assume that
pacifists, who did
not create the situation in the first place... can now be parachuted into the middle of [the crisis] with a ready - made solution.»
Of course, religious
pacifists recognize that it is
not enough to point out that the massive military campaign currently under way will
not work, and in fact will do more harm than good.
The «
pacifist» proponents of nonviolent resistance do
not, as many seem to think, occupy the moral high ground while the rest of us are prepared to get our hands dirty in «the real world.»
In other words, the modern - war
pacifists get it wrong: their contingent judgment does
not describe a permanent truth about warfare in the modern age.
I'm no
pacifist,
not even close, but I'm opposed to symbolic killing.
I'm sure many people would consider themselves
pacifists but say that this is too extreme a definition, one might say for example that pacifism means «attempting to promote peace and making it a goal, but accepting that war is necessary in some cases to prevent greater evils,» however the way violence vs. following Jesus is being discussed in this context doesn't allow such concessions.
Not an insult, it's like wake up and quit being such a
pacifist.
This does
not mean we are unresponsive
pacifists — it means we are actively peaceful and actively contrary to the ways of empire and violence.
He decided
not to have anything to do with «the war business» again and became a
pacifist.
Brushing aside both just - war theorists and
pacifists, Bowman says that if we were honest, we would admit that all wars in the end are matters of honor (
not morality) and ought to be treated as such.
Perhaps discerning her own impending death, this undaunted woman had added in the May letter: «There is nothing
pacifists can do but take their share of the agony and pray for the future we shan't live to see»»