Moral dilemmas

[shorazorblade]

Jesus did not go around stopping bullies, the priests, in His ministry.

Hmmm debateable: "...And making a whip of cords, he drove them all out of the temple along with the sheep and oxen.
And he scattered the coins of the money-changers and overturned their tables..."

[shorazorblade]

2. Many of us are guilty of murder even if we have never killed anyone, we can commit murder in our hearts by wishing death on someone(however much the may merit it).

Where did you get that from?  It's not biblical (though you have attempted to tie it into a verse) so why bring it up like it's a fact?

[shorazorblade]

The worst culprits of violence through history have been church leaders- to the point of the shocking crusades.

...You should re-read those history books Ross  :Chinscratch:

[marie glen]

Good thread folks :)  Many good points.  I liked this too from rose;

"I believe if they live or die they are the LORDS  to do with as he pleases with His own things , we are not our own ...

  If they live it is to witness of Gods glory on earth as it is in heaven ,  that is to save ...

  to me heavens glory is  SALVATION  and cannot even begin to be imagined   what is in store for all , for HE IS THE GOD OF LIFE though salvation .."

    :thumbsup: Amen!

[shorazorblade]

5. Pacifism often calls for more hard decisions, more personal sacrifice, and more courage than violence does. Pacifism actually always requires demands more courage, whether it is correct or not. That does not mean that every self-proclaimed pacifist is courageous or than believes in violence, many would resort to violence to protect themselves. It doesn't generally take much courage to advocate for pacifism(I am sure it will lead to persecution for many pacifists but not so much in America at least). I get tired of people assuming that pacifists base our beliefs on warm fuzzy feelings or personal sensitivities, it takes a stronger person to be a true pacifist than to resort to violence. It demands more courage of an arachnophobe to spare a spider, than to kill it. It takes more courage or strength to be vulnerable than to kill. 

I disagree.  :girlheart:
Many times Pacifism has been used to excuse cowardice or transfer responsibility (letting someone else do the dirty work).  :eek:
It's a bit like people who eat meat happily at fancy restuarants until they actually have to go out into the wilds and hunt and butcher a live animal...(They would leave that part to someone else but happily eat it later in the restuarant) (under the guise of 'civilized').  :laughing7: Some would argue that such folk shouldn't even be allowed to eat. 

2 Thessalonians 3:10
For even when we were with you, we gave you this rule: "The one who is unwilling to work shall not eat."

You say pacifism often calls for harder decisions.  Sometimes yes. Sometimes no. 
Did God have an easy decision with Sodom? 
What about the flood? 
Did God regret the flood?  :eek:
Why? (Because it was a choice He would rather have not had to make)?  Because He doesn't take pleasure in the death of the wicked? - Because of many things really.

It doesn't take more 'courage' to spare a spider for an arachnophobe lol!
If anything it would be that person's conscience that may prevent someone from taking a spider's life (not courage lol) but then the spider isn't chasing after them with a hatchet or threatening to bomb the local school is it?!  :rolllol:
Also they could get someone else to put the spider outside for them instead of killing it.  (Which again is 'transferring the responsibility). (No courage involved there!).
Or...They might be 'ok' with someone else killing it.  :mock: (You get that a lot where spiders are concerned!)  (But really the blood is still on their hands however many excuses they want to make).  :winkgrin: 

It doesnt take more courage or stength to be 'vulnerable' either.   :LH:
Being vulnerable is a: 'letting go' for a lot of people. - It's easier. - It gets them off the hook. 
Once they let go they don't have to worry any more about being 'tough' or being 'responsible'...They just accept themselves as a coward, a sissyboy too scared to fight back etc and others know them as that too.
"Don't ask him to do it, he's a coward, let's get someone else". 
And some THRIVE on that.  -  They RELISH being the 'weaker' one.
"Mr Bully don't concern yourself with me...I'm no threat to you!  You're the best!  Take anything you want from me (just don't hurt me please!)!"
Seen it all before.  :laughing7:

At the end of the day...There are cowardly pacifists and brave pacifists and morally right ones and morally wrong ones in the same way some people use violence in cowardice and others in bravery and sometimes they are morally right or wrong...Something I'm not sure you can grasp? (It certainly doesn't come across in your writings).
It's all about the heart/intent and until you grasp that you have no understanding of these matters.

All the examples you gave are to support your own view without taking the other side into consideration as myself and the others have done and because of this your examples are easily refuted as I've demonstrated because the actual truth is somewhere in the middle (and not putting pacifism on a pedestal).
Besides If you were a proper pacifist you wouldn't have accused me of 'judgeing' and 'accusing' and trying to 'offend' you from the outset...  That mindset is one of 'aggressor' and 'victim' so I'm having trouble accepting that you are a true pacifist anyway.



:HeartThrob:

[shorazorblade]

What if some dude sneaks into you house with a ski mask on when you are home alone? He might simply be a thief....

SIMPLY?  :eek: And you lecture on morals?  :Chinscratch:

[shorazorblade]

If God incarnated as a fallible human but it somehow went terribly wrong and he became a murderer, would it be right to shoot that Incarnation dead in defense of someone else's life? Maybe, but I think not.

Now THAT is being inconsistent!!!  :laughing7:  More than that it's being outright ridiculous.    :eek:
Come on Daniel...You can do better than that surely?
You accuse others of making extreme and impossible arguments...  There is nothing that COULD be more impossible and extreme than that!  :eek:

How can perfection Itself,
Love itself,
Knowledge Itself,
Truth Itself etc
(and knowing the end from the start etc)...How can God EVER get things 'terribly wrong'?   :doh:

Shoot Life Itself?  Do you even know what you're saying here?

Nah this is the poorest example of anything i've ever heard in my life lol!

:HeartThrob: :URWelcome: :HeartThrob:

[DanielB]

"If you were a proper pacifist you wouldn't have accused me of 'judgeing' and 'accusing' and trying to 'offend' you from the outset...  That mindset is one of 'aggressor' and 'victim' so I'm having trouble accepting that you are a true pacifist anyway."

You must have misunderstood me, I didn't accuse you of judging me I assume that you are talking about where I said

"Please know that I am not judging or accusing you of wrong. I used to agree with the sorts of things you are saying. Second, please do not assume that I am a pacifist because I have a weak stomach or that I value my personal feelings over the lives of others(but I am not offended by the insinuation because it will take more than that to offend me  :winkgrin:)."

In the first sentence, I was just trying to let you know that I am not the type to get hostile over this subject as some pacifists ironically do. The second sentence was worded in a way that I can see how it might have come across as accusatory but I wasn't accusing you of having assumed this, I was just trying to point out that I am not opposed to violence just cuz it makes me feel bad. People often assume that about pacifist and I am sure you can relate as a universalist(I mean to people assuming that we are universalists just because we are just a bunch of namby-pamby liberals that judge everything based on how palatable it is :) ) The last part in the brackets with the emoji was also worded badly in retrospect, I wasn't accusing you of ill will or of trying to offend me, I meant that you don't have to worry about unintentionally offending me because I am hard to offend.

But this seems to have backfired and was interpreted as the opposite of what I was saying. I think I must have an idiosyncratic or downright convoluted way of communicating online because this type of miscommunication seems to happen to me a lot. :sigh:

2. Many of us are guilty of murder even if we have never killed anyone, we can murder in our hearts by wishing death on someone(however much the may merit it).

Where did you get that from?  It's not biblical so why bring it up like it's a fact?

1 John 3:15
Everyone who hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him.

It is possible to kill someone(justifiably or unjustifiably) without hating them, but wishing(I mean desiring) death on someone comes from hate most of the time. To be clear, intending to kill someone or thinking that someone ought to be killed in order to stop them from killing is not necessarily wishing death on them. Wanting someone dead out of vengefulness, anger, or indignation is what I would call murder in this sense. I understand the concept of killing someone out of a desire to protect others, I agree that intention matters.


"It doesn't take more 'courage' to spare a spider for an arachnophobe lol!"
I was using a metaphor for sparing enemies when you have the upper hand, not trying to convince anyone they shouldn't kill spiders. I used to be afraid of spiders and they still give me the jitters sometimes. lol I know from experience that in my case, it was scarier to let a spider live(and to wander and hide around the house just waiting for an opportunity to strike  :laughing7:) than to just squash it with some long object from a few feet away.

"It doesnt take more courage or strength to be 'vulnerable' either."
I did not mean to say vulnerable as in "weak". In retrospect, vulnerable was a poor choice of a word for what I was talking about. I think maybe "merciful" would have been a better word to describe what I was talking about or more specifically  "merciful even when it puts you in danger(even though you have the ability to easily kill the enemy)" Jesus is the ultimate example of this by not fighting his captors even though he could have killed them all(I am aware that this example does not prove he was a pacifist since he had a larger purpose in mind). I agree that it doesn't require strength or courage to play a victim.

"At the end of the day...There are cowardly pacifists and brave pacifists and morally right ones and morally wrong ones in the same way some people use violence in cowardice and others in bravery and sometimes they are morally right or wrong...Something I'm not sure you can grasp? (It certainly doesn't come across in your writings).
It's all about the heart/intent and until you grasp that you have no understanding of these matters."
I think there may be times where a person is admirably misguided or innocent in intention to kill(it is certainly possible to kill with righteous motivation) but only when they truly value the life of the person they are killing and have high regard for them, that is very rare.

I used to hunt with my uncle and I was actually known for a willingness to shoot the raccoons or squirrels point-blank in the head(which others interpreted as brutality and my uncle actually joked that I was merciless at some point, but I intended to put them out of their suffering since I didn't trust that their twitching was "just nerves"). I don't go hunting anymore since I never truly liked it, I would purposely miss at times or not point out animals that I saw and I just told myself I was out there to make sure that they were finished off quickly, but I also wanted to prove that I could do it because I was a boy. Because I had broken integrity, I would harden my heart when killing so that I felt nothing. I occasionally still "mercy-kill" animals when it is apparent that they are dying and suffering(for example, a rabbit my dog caught and chewed on but didn't finish off, so I smashed his/her head to paste with a sledgehammer without hardening my heart and I cried because I valued his/her life) or a mouse that was partially frozen in the ice but still alive, or a frog immobilized by a broken leg, stuff like that. So I am capable of being a cold-blooded killer(but refuse to be) or a compassionate killer(when it comes to) but I am conflicted about the concept of "mercy-killing" and I suspect that it wouldn't be necessary if not for my insufficient faith.

If God incarnated as a fallible human but it somehow went terribly wrong and he became a murderer, would it be right to shoot that Incarnation dead in defense of someone else's life? Maybe, but I think not.

Now THAT is being inconsistent!!!  :laughing7:  More than that it's being outright ridiculous.    :eek:
Come on Daniel...You can do better than that surely?
You accuse others of making extreme and impossible arguments...  There is nothing that COULD be more impossible and extreme than that!  :eek:

How can perfection Itself,
Love itself,
Knowledge Itself,
Truth Itself etc
(and knowing the end from the start etc)...How can God EVER get things 'terribly wrong'?   :doh:

Shoot Life Itself?  Do you even know what you're saying here?

Of course that is unrealistic because God is not fallible. I was just explaining how I visualize the fact that whatever we do to others, good or bad, loving or unloving, justified or unjustified... we have done so to Jesus. I was explaining how it does not necessarily mean that we should be pacifists because there is the argument that it might be in a murderer's best interest to be stopped even by lethal force(which is one of the best arguments against pacifism). I was trying to express that God loves murderers and if any child of God suffers God will suffer.

[shorazorblade]

But this seems to have backfired and was interpreted as the opposite of what I was saying. I think I must have an idiosyncratic or downright convoluted way of communicating online because this type of miscommunication seems to happen to me a lot. :sigh:

Lol don't bother about it.  Me too lol!
I've been banned from countless forums and thrown out of churches and such like all my life (because i've been 'read' wrong) (or in some churches cases they just hate the truth).
The world certainly hates me no doubt about that lol!  (I'm not to keen on it either). I'm either doing something wrong or something right.  :LH:
The main thing is we can debate and sharpen each other without either of us losing any love over it.

Many of us are guilty of murder even if we have never killed anyone, we can murder in our hearts by wishing death on someone(however much the may merit it).

Where did you get that from?  It's not biblical so why bring it up like it's a fact?

1 John 3:15
Everyone who hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him.

Jesus says 'hates his brother' not 'wishes him dead'. 
Are you saying these are the same thing?
In some ways I guess they could be...Though I know that i have hated people in the past but never wished them dead.  Wishing them dead would be a much stronger 'hatred' than I must have had. 
So I guess just like there are is less and more love there is less and more hate? 
...Or are we going to spend all night argueing about that now?!   
:mock: LOL!  (Joking Joking!)  :laughing7: :LH:

I was using a metaphor for sparing enemies when you have the upper hand,

You know Daniel I've always said that true power is having power...and not using it.
...Because it's so tempting too...
Jesus had 'power'...and seldom used it (except for the benefit of others)...Not even on the cross did he magic up himself a loaf of bread and some nice wine (instead of that bitter stuff the Romans shoved to his lips). 
...Not using his powers must have been extremely hard to resist...
If someone is bigger and stronger than someone else or they have a better position of authority over someone they tend to use their power over others to control them...It's hard to not use the power we have over others. 
To me true power is not useing the power we have. 
It's like in martial arts where they say: "We learn to fight so we don't have to fight".  People don't often understand that but to me there is a lot of truth in that. 
...Just because we 'can' doesn't mean we 'should'.

not trying to convince anyone they shouldn't kill spiders. I used to be afraid of spiders and they still give me the jitters sometimes. lol I know from experience that in my case, it was scarier to let a spider live(and to wander and hide around the house just waiting for an opportunity to strike  :laughing7:) than to just squash it with some long object from a few feet away.

I was the same tbh. 
One day I bent down with a shoe in my hand to kill a fairly big spider in the corner of the room and you know what it did?...
...It reared up it's front legs and covered it's face as if to say:
"Oh no!"  :eek:
And...I couldn't do it...  :dontknow:
Ever since that day i've never killed another spider.  :HeartThrob:
In fact i've grown to love them (and other creatures) with a deeper fondness.
I'm still having a hard time with people...But I'm working on it.  :laughing7:

I think there may be times where a person is admirably misguided or innocent in intention to kill(it is certainly possible to kill with righteous motivation) but only when they truly value the life of the person they are killing and have high regard for them, that is very rare.

To me...one mans faith allows him to eat only bread...To others...more.
If someone tells me they smoke and it isn't a sin for them...I believe them. - Who am i to judge them?
If someone takes their dog to be put down because it's sick and old and they feel it's for the best...who am i to judge?
If someone doesn't take their dog to be put down because they just can't go through with it and they feel its for the best...who am i to judge?  :dontknow:

I used to hunt with my uncle and I was actually known for a willingness to shoot the raccoons or squirrels point-blank in the head(which others interpreted as brutality and my uncle actually joked that I was merciless at some point, but I intended to put them out of their suffering since I didn't trust that their twitching was "just nerves"). I don't go hunting anymore since I never truly liked it, I would purposely miss at times or not point out animals that I saw and I just told myself I was out there to make sure that they were finished off quickly, but I also wanted to prove that I could do it because I was a boy. Because I had broken integrity, I would harden my heart when killing so that I felt nothing. I occasionally still "mercy-kill" animals when it is apparent that they are dying and suffering(for example, a rabbit my dog caught and chewed on but didn't finish off, so I smashed his/her head to paste with a sledgehammer without hardening my heart and I cried because I valued his/her life) or a mouse that was partially frozen in the ice but still alive, or a frog immobilized by a broken leg, stuff like that. So I am capable of being a cold-blooded killer(but refuse to be) or a compassionate killer(when it comes to) but I am conflicted about the concept of "mercy-killing" and I suspect that it wouldn't be necessary if not for my insufficient faith.

And you are a pacifist? LOL!  :laughing7:
Well...we all have our experiences.  I understand.
All that matters is faith expressing itself through love at the end of the day.
Again...Who am i to judge you.  -  You did what you felt was right in your heart I'm sure. 
Whether it was 'really' wrong or right I don't know...God knows...And I guess you would know if you acted justly or not, just as I knew I wasn't acting justly when i went to kill the spider lol. (So I didn't)...and he may still well live to this day.  :HeartThrob: 

Of course that is unrealistic because God is not fallible. I was just explaining how I visualize the fact that whatever we do to others, good or bad, loving or unloving, justified or unjustified... we have done so to Jesus. I was explaining how it does not necessarily mean that we should be pacifists because there is the argument that it might be in a murderer's best interest to be stopped even by lethal force(which is one of the best arguments against pacifism). I was trying to express that God loves murderers and if any child of God suffers God will suffer.

Ok.


Again It boils down to the heart...the secret intents of the heart...God judges the heart...Two-edged sword deciphering (and all that)... 

Daniel.  Thanks for the debate. 
I hope I didn't offend you...
...I do know how 'text speak' can come across at times.
Maybe we can add to this at some point or discuss it further in the future.
Thank you.  :HeartThrob:

[DanielB]

Thanks for the kind replies! I don't think it is wrong or at least nothing to be ashamed about that we care for some people or have fonder feelings for some people more than others. It really depends on how we are defining love I guess. Either way we need to be honest with ourselves, I certainly wouldn't claim that I love all people equally, especially if we are defining love as an emotion(there is no way I could sustain that constantly for anyone and certainly not everyone that I encounter in my life). My mentality is just that it is wrong to access one person's worth as above or below others. I believe that if there was just one fallen person out of all humanity, God would still be willing to face death for them. I would consider God's worth as above all of ours and maybe I would think that people are worth different amounts if not for the fact that God is willing to sacrifice himself for us! I believe that God has accessed each of us to be amazingly worth even God himself "living, dying, and living again for", which is hard to comprehend and maybe even hard to believe sometimes, but how else should we interpret the Gospel? If God has assessed us as having such worth, how can I consider anyone to be expendable?

I don't believe God has a higher assessment of anyone's worth to him over others, Jacob was not worth more than Esau and John(or whoever the unnamed disciple was) was not worth more to him than any of the others including Judas. I am sure Jesus probably emotionally felt better around some people than others, but that does not mean that he loved them more. Remember that love can increase a person's suffering when their loved ones are suffering or behaving badly, nothing can lead to more heartache than love. The "one that Jesus loved" could have been for the purpose of anonymizing a person for various possible reasons(not necessarily out of fear of anything) or there are different possible reasons that it might have been used. There are a few ideas here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disciple_whom_Jesus_loved#Reasons_for_concealing_the_identity_by_name

I am sure you know there is a difference between judging in a condemning/prosecuting sense vs trying to assess the wisdom or consequences of an action. There is probably a very long list of cases where I wouldn't even be tempted to condemn someone for killing, even in cases where it was unambiguously wrong(but the person is crazy or misled). In my experience, my temptations to condemn always happen along with self-righteousness, when I forget that I would likely be the same or worse than who I am condemning if not for God's unmerited gifts. I can consider something like suicide to be wrong or sinful but that doesn't mean that I condemn them in the sense of wishing punishment on them(I hope that is not opening another can of worms). We can judge things as sin without looking down on people. I can say "That is sin/wrong/harmful" while also believing that I might or that I would likely do the same in that person's shoes.

One of the most extreme examples that comes to mind was the woman that drowned her children one by one in the bathtub because she was afraid of what might happen if they reached the age of accountability. That is absolutely horrible and if I was thinking about it like a spiritual prosecutor, I might say that she ought to have had the faith or hope in the goodness of God rather than believing the slander about God and that she is not innocent... but I still don't condemn her in the sense of wanting her to be punished. And of course there are cases where killing may have actually been the right thing to do in defense of others. I acknowledge that I could be mistaken even though I lean in the other direction. I would go so far as to say that there were probably good-hearted(insofar as anyone is good-hearted) and well intention Nazi grunts, they didn't all know about the atrocities of the Nazis did they? They were no doubt told of atrocities of the Allies both real and made up and maybe they were even told "If we don't fight, we will all be speaking english in a few years".

So the point of pacifism, even dogmatic pacifism, is not to look down on others or to decide who ought to be punished or to accuse everyone that uses violence of ill will, it is just about or ought to be about believing that there is always a better alternative to lethal violence(or all force to stricter pacifists, which I disagree with). I have a step-brother in the military and apparently my other stepbrother has been interested in joining, it certainly doesn't harm our relationship, if anything I respect them a bit more for it(for their motives or intentions).

[shorazorblade]

Thanks for the kind replies! I don't think it is wrong or at least nothing to be ashamed about that we care for some people or have fonder feelings for some people more than others. It really depends on how we are defining love I guess. Either way we need to be honest with ourselves, I certainly wouldn't claim that I love all people equally, especially if we are defining love as an emotion(there is no way I could sustain that constantly for anyone and certainly not everyone that I encounter in my life). My mentality is just that it is wrong to access one person's worth as above or below others. I believe that if there was just one fallen person out of all humanity, God would still be willing to face death for them. I would consider God's worth as above all of ours and maybe I would think that people are worth different amounts if not for the fact that God is willing to sacrifice himself for us! I believe that God has accessed each of us to be amazingly worth even God himself "living, dying, and living again for", which is hard to comprehend and maybe even hard to believe sometimes, but how else should we interpret the Gospel? If God has assessed us as having such worth, how can I consider anyone to be expendable?

I don't believe God has a higher assessment of anyone's worth to him over others, Jacob was not worth more than Esau and John(or whoever the unnamed disciple was) was not worth more to him than any of the others including Judas. I am sure Jesus probably emotionally felt better around some people than others, but that does not mean that he loved them more. Remember that love can increase a person's suffering when their loved ones are suffering or behaving badly, nothing can lead to more heartache than love. The "one that Jesus loved" could have been for the purpose of anonymizing a person for various possible reasons(not necessarily out of fear of anything) or there are different possible reasons that it might have been used. There are a few ideas here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disciple_whom_Jesus_loved#Reasons_for_concealing_the_identity_by_name

I am sure you know there is a difference between judging in a condemning/prosecuting sense vs trying to assess the wisdom or consequences of an action. There is probably a very long list of cases where I wouldn't even be tempted to condemn someone for killing, even in cases where it was unambiguously wrong(but the person is crazy or misled). In my experience, my temptations to condemn always happen along with self-righteousness, when I forget that I would likely be the same or worse than who I am condemning if not for God's unmerited gifts. I can consider something like suicide to be wrong or sinful but that doesn't mean that I condemn them in the sense of wishing punishment on them(I hope that is not opening another can of worms). We can judge things as sin without looking down on people. I can say "That is sin/wrong/harmful" while also believing that I might or that I would likely do the same in that person's shoes.

One of the most extreme examples that comes to mind was the woman that drowned her children one by one in the bathtub because she was afraid of what might happen if they reached the age of accountability. That is absolutely horrible and if I was thinking about it like a spiritual prosecutor, I might say that she ought to have had the faith or hope in the goodness of God rather than believing the slander about God and that she is not innocent... but I still don't condemn her in the sense of wanting her to be punished. And of course there are cases where killing may have actually been the right thing to do in defense of others. I acknowledge that I could be mistaken even though I lean in the other direction. I would go so far as to say that there were probably good-hearted(insofar as anyone is good-hearted) and well intention Nazi grunts, they didn't all know about the atrocities of the Nazis did they? They were no doubt told of atrocities of the Allies both real and made up and maybe they were even told "If we don't fight, we will all be speaking english in a few years".

So the point of pacifism, even dogmatic pacifism, is not to look down on others or to decide who ought to be punished or to accuse everyone that uses violence of ill will, it is just about or ought to be about believing that there is always a better alternative to lethal violence(or all force to stricter pacifists, which I disagree with). I have a step-brother in the military and apparently my other stepbrother has been interested in joining, it certainly doesn't harm our relationship, if anything I respect them a bit more for it(for their motives or intentions).

Thanks for the response.

I have a step-brother in the military and apparently my other stepbrother has been interested in joining, it certainly doesn't harm our relationship, if anything I respect them a bit more for it(for their motives or intentions).

Daniel...Maybe you should check the meaning of what it means to be a real pacifist before you call yourself one? - It would save a lot of confusion when you talk to others.  I'm sure there is another name for your beliefs but you are not a pacifist.

I would go so far as to say that there were probably good-hearted(insofar as anyone is good-hearted) and well intention Nazi grunts,

:doh: ...That's an incredibly ignorant thing to say...
...For a 'spiritual' minded person it's pretty much a no-no.
At this day in age; ignorance about wars and the cause of them and what 'really' goes/went on is inexcusable. - Get educated.
You take the moral highground all the time in your talks whilst claiming you don't which is an utter contradiction.

I won't spend too much time in response to all all you wrote as I don't feel it's necessary at this point. - I got what I was looking for from this thread...The answer became clear to me as I held the truth up to lies.

I'd just like to say that the overall flaw in your logic (and it's why it's not necessary for me to respond to all you say) is that you don't take into account the 'duality' (yin and yang) aspects in everything and therefore you lack certain (and very important understanding).  Until you can grasp it, debate is pointless.
For example you say:

Remember that love can increase a person's suffering when their loved ones are suffering or behaving badly, nothing can lead to more heartache than love.

...That is not a true statement. - It's impossible.
It's also a very odd thing to say for a 'believer'.

First of all: God is love. 
So to say: "nothing can lead to more heartache than God"...Is simply not true and countless many people 'saved' by God/Christ would have a few choice words for you there.  :Chinscratch: ...And they would be right!
If anything God/Love 'heals the brokenhearted!'...  Gives sight to the blind...He is the 'great comforter'...And so on.  (I could fill pages here but you get the jist).
He restores us, comforts us through hard times and trials and when people are nasty to us, or when someone we love is sick or we are in a 'prison'. Etc etc.  He is our 'refuge', our 'rock', our 'shield' and so on and so forth.
...Heck sometimes all we have is love and it could be argued it's all we need as well.  :HeartThrob:
So for you to say that 'nothing leads to more heartache than love/God' is...Well it's ridiculous Daniel let's not beat around the bush...It's utterly ridiculous and I hope you realize that.

Many have suffered at the hands of hate! - Doesn't hate lead to heartache? 
Why was 'love/God' your first choice to brand the main cause of heartache?
The true God merely creates darkness so we can know His Light.

1 Peter 3:17 For it is better, if it is God's will, to suffer for doing good than for doing evil.
I've suffered for both and I know the difference. - One destroyed me but it also healed me and the other just destroyed me and left a bitter taste in my mouth and never tried to restore me!

My issue with your 'logic' really is the fact that you don't understand 'balance' and therefore you lack understanding concerning a great deal about how the universe/God operates.
...Everything has yin and yang aspects to it. 
If the universe did not have this it would not exist as we know it.  (Up/Down...Left/Right...Death/Life...Dark/Light...and so on...We need one to know the other.  And why? - It's to humble us.  Humbleness/appreciation.

"There can be no disharmony in an intelligent universe, because all things must work together for the common good" - Emmett Fox.

I know we all see through a glass darkly and nobody 'knows it all' and we all learn from each other and I've much to learn myself ... But gee...This is pretty basic stuff. - I hope for your sake you will take on board the things I am saying here. 
I'm not here to win a debate but simply to find truth.
I will stand corrected if indeed someone corrects me.

Job 2:10
He replied, "You are talking like a foolish woman. Shall we accept good from God, and not evil?" In all this, Job did not sin in what he said.

I know it's hard to grasp what I'm saying for many.
We are told...
God is EVERYTHING, yet God is love and love is the opposite of hate...
So why isn't God hate if He is everything?
GOD = GOoD, DEVIL = dEVIL
Well God is love but 'creates' the darkness and evil.
Why? - Because until a 'Light shines in the darkness' we can't realize it.
In that light...Was the life of men.

You'll always enjoy a hot cup of tea more when you've just come back from a long walk outdoors in the snow and you are cold and thirsty. (Because I just did (slurp))  :laughing7:

There is a lot of understanding in that statement of mine above because it shows a big part of Who God is...(Life Itself)...God is creating 'all'...The cold night...my legs to walk...the world i just walked in...the snow...the cold...and the warmth and thirst and the cows that made the milk for the tea and the plant that made the sugar and the materials that made the tea cup et cetc. - Altogether it all made for a wonderful experience (the yin and yang) (for those with eyes to see!). (Though other elements also comes into play (appreciation etc) to determine how good (or bad) the experience was for me.

Anyway I'm getting off topic.

Any 'heartache' we suffer for love is and will be worth it. But evil doesn't bring any real reward.

I feel a song coming on! :laughing7:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=otFDQEFWaA4

[DanielB]

"Remember that love can increase a person's suffering when their loved ones are suffering or behaving badly, nothing can lead to more heartache than love."
I did not mean to say that love itself is what hurts people. (I also am not as pessimistic as that may have come accross. ) I mean that a person that loves in a fallen world can be vulnerable to greater amounts of suffering, that is not to say that it is a bad tradeoff, it is preferable to love even in cases where it is more painful not to. Do you think God would suffer more or less if he didn't love? It's true that love itself is not at fault, but it does render us vulnerable to some forms of suffering that we otherwise would not be vulnerable to.



"I have a step-brother in the military and apparently my other stepbrother has been interested in joining, it certainly doesn't harm our relationship, if anything I respect them a bit more for it(for their motives or intentions)."-me

you replied
Daniel...Maybe you should check the meaning of what it means to be a real pacifist before you call yourself one? - It would save a lot of confusion when you talk to others.  I'm sure there is another name for your beliefs but you are not a pacifist.

Are you referring to the fact that I condone non-lethal force or are you suggesting that a pacifist must look down on or not respect people in the military? Whether I am a pacifist is a matter of who is defining it, I am not attached to the label and don't care whether I am technically one or not. Some people define it as loosely as not condoning war and others say it means total non-resistance. I don't care what people do or don't call my stance since I am not attached to the word.

"You take the moral highground all the time in your talks whilst claiming you don't which is an utter contradiction."
If having a stance on a moral issue is taking the moral high ground, then I am guilty as charged but I did not claim otherwise. I do believe pacifism is the high ground in the same sense that you believe killing mass shooters is the moral high ground but that doesn't mean that I can not respect someone that disagrees nor that I believe I myself am morally superior to non-pacifists. Because first of all, I fail morally in other areas and secondly, I am not morally perfect in any way or area so it would be absurd if I were to claim moral superiority over other humans since it wouldn't be saying much even if it were true.

But I don't feel like explaining myself further, just about any statement has multiple possible interpretations and the goal should be to determine what the other person is trying to communicate, but you seem to be in the habit of interpreting anything I say in the worst possible way and it is tiring to explain or clarify everything.
Give this short link a read if you want to know what I am talking about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity

[shorazorblade]

Do you think God would suffer more or less if he didn't love?

?   

God IS love.  Daniel what are you talking about?

It's true that love itself is not at fault, but it does render us vulnerable to some forms of suffering that we otherwise would not be vulnerable to.

:doh: (Speechless).

I am not attached to the label and don't care whether I am technically one or not Some people define it as loosely as not condoning war and others say it means total non-resistance. I don't care what people do or don't call my stance since I am not attached to the word.

Ok.   :punish:
...It's just that you've been calling yourself a pacifist since we started debating and lecturing me on it and explaining what a pacifist is to me page after page...But now you're not 'technically' a pacifist but you 'might be'...  :doh:

I do believe pacifism is the high ground

I noticed.  :LH:
...Though it's nice to hear you admit it for once instead of lying about it. 

... in the same sense that you believe killing mass shooters is the moral high ground

Ooops...And you are back to lying again.   :eek:
I'm dissapointed.
I never stated such a thing anywhere.
My stance continuously was/is:

"At the end of the day...There are cowardly pacifists and brave pacifists and morally right ones and morally wrong ones in the same way some people use violence in cowardice and others in bravery and sometimes they are morally right or wrong...Something I'm not sure you can grasp?"
...I see you still can't grasp it.  :dontknow:

I said elsewhere:
"I'd just like to add that if someone's conscience prevented them from killing the child killer...It wouldn't be my judgement call to make whether he acted rightly or not and his heart could still be right (or perhaps even more right) with God than my own".

ETC ETC ETC. 
...So how you can misinterpret those statements of mine and call me a liar is totally beyond me...

You also keep contradicting yourself...
For example (I don't have time to go through them all (we'd be here all year!))...
...In once sentence you said:

nor that I believe I myself am morally superior to non-pacifists.

In another sentence (just before that one) you said:

I do believe pacifism is the high ground

...This is all a bit ridiculous Daniel.

But I don't feel like explaining myself further,

That's ok, you don't have too.
All I was hoping for was that you would see your errors, admit them and seek truth and I will still hope for that. 
Your writings are contradictory and confusing and: 'God is not the author of confusion'.
We all get a bit mixed up though, especially as we reason and try to work things out but perhaps it's not a great idea to take such a firm stance on anything until you are more certain of what you are talking about?...I try to stay 'plyable' so I can develop as I learn new truths. 
...Even at the start of this discussion I didn't have my mind made up about anything until it hit me that: 'it's all about the heart and motives'.  I knew it was the truth right away.  And really...You should have noticed it too.
I agree with you that things get 'lost in translation' online sometimes...
...But this seems like an excuse as the things you have stated are GLARING contradictions with sadly some lies thrown in.
However undeliberate you say any lies or contradictions might be you know perfectly well my 'stance' in all of this as I stated it time and time again (that it is all about the 'heart' and it doesn't matter if someone is a pacifist or not). - I never claimed any moral high ground. 
...So to say what you said of me is a blatant lie.

I'll be praying for you where you are in your walk and though I am tired of our 'debate' now I wish only good things for you.

:HeartThrob:  :URWelcome:

[jabcat]

alright guys, not a debate forum :)

some interesting things have been shared and it seems both sides have been adequately expressed without us wandering (or wandering further) into conflict.

anything productive left to say or do we move on to something else?  if not, it's probably about to be locked.

:Peace2:

[DanielB]

I think either you or I are misunderstanding the meaning of moral high ground. I think you have it mixed up with moral high horse. The moral high ground is good and typically just means that a person is morally correct on a specific issue but being on a "high horse" means being condescending, disrespectful, arrogant, or so on. If someone says you have the moral high ground they are complimenting you and if a christian says that a stance has the moral high ground it typically means that they simply think that it is aligned with God's will(or at least more than the alternative). To be fair, it appears that many people do use it in the same way "high horse" is used but I wasn't using it in that way when referring to you or I. Maybe I am misunderstanding the term. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_high_ground


But I said I was tired of explaining myself so I guess I am just being a big ol liar again, right? At first I was surprised by your use of all the laughter and pointing&laughing emoticons because they came across as mockery(since you were using them over and over again in response to me trying to have a serious conversation, they are more appropriate for jokes and things intended in humor), but I thought "I shouldn't assume bad intentions, he may just have a weird sense of humor or something". But I have changed my mind. Maybe I have misinterpreted you and maybe you unintentionally have an incredibly abrasive way of speaking. How well do you get along with people in life? Because if you are laughing in their face while they are trying to have a serious and respectful conversation with you, demonstrating no charitable interpretation, and repeatedly saying they are ridiculous and liars, then I suspect you must have few friends. Whether you meant it or not, I am telling you that I felt you were being very disrespectful, at least coming across that way, and if you do not believe me then please seek out a second unbiased opinion and work on this if you don't want people you are communicating this to feel disrespected against your wishes.

I continued discussing this with you because I assume that you are not lying, ridiculous, ignorant, clueless person and I still assume that you are none of those things because what benefit is there in such uncharitable assumptions? I would not waste my time trying to have a reasoned conversation with a lying, ridiculous, ignorant, clueless person. But if this is how you communicate with everyone, you will drive people away and hurt those that take the mockery to heart.

I refuse to believe that you are a mocker at heart, maybe you are just having a bad day or don't know how you come across, or maybe you thought I was attacking you. Please ask an unbiased stranger who they think was being respectful or disrespectful, if you were being respectful, you will be vindicated and if you came across as disrespectful.

Maybe we both have come across as disrespectful and both didn't mean it(I sure didn't), wouldn't that be ironic? I am done discussing pacifism in this thread but I welcome anyone else to chime in and tell us how we each came across. If anyone else is reading this please say here or message me where you think communication went wrong, I would like to know if this could have been avoided.

[shorazorblade]

Hi Daniel.

I've just shown you lied about being a pacifist. (And that you didn't even know what one is).
Ive' just shown you lied about me and twisted my words in order to do so.
You also distorted the bible.
I've shown your argument was ridiculous several times but you lack any ability to reason because you obviously hate truth.
Etc...

...And now you continue to dissapoint me now with personal attacks.
Anything I said to you was for YOUR benefit but...You really are too deaf dumb and blind to see that.  :dunno2:

The reason I use emoticons  :punish: lol is...well first of all because they are there.  :Chinscratch: -  They are there to be used.
Secondly...It became increasingly difficult to take anything you said seriously.
And...Now I can't take anything you say seriously.  :dontknow:
And thirdly...I think they liven the conversation up and bring it to life a little...For me they split the conversation up too -making it easier to read instead of it just being line after line of text.

I think either you or I are misunderstanding the meaning of moral high ground. I think you have it mixed up with moral high horse. The moral high ground is good and typically just means that a person is morally correct on a specific issue but being on a "high horse" means being condescending, disrespectful, arrogant, or so on. If someone says you have the moral high ground they are complimenting you and if a christian says that a stance has the moral high ground it typically means that they simply think that it is aligned with God's will(or at least more than the alternative). To be fair, it appears that many people do use it in the same way "high horse" is used but I wasn't using it in that way when referring to you or I. Maybe I am misunderstanding the term. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_high_ground

...Eh?  Do you think people have time to waste or nonsense like that?   :LH:

But I said I was tired of explaining myself so I guess I am just being a big ol liar again, right?

Just 'liar' is suffice.

I suspect you must have few friends.

I assume you are a very popular man with lots of friends then to make such a statement or at least that you define a 'good person' as someone with lots of friends and bad people either have few or don't have any friends.
Well ... I used to have more friends...when i was more worldly in my thinking and just like everyone else.
...Since bathing in higher truths I could count my friends on one hand lol.
But then, just because you have 'lots' of friends (Mr popular!) doesn't mean much at all...Are they real friends?
Remember the old woman who put more money in the collection tin (even though she put in less)?
Because it's about quality and not quantity isn't it? (Unless you have a big ego which you must to have written such a thing).
The friends I do have are treasure to me. - I'd give my life for them and they for me... a hundred times over if we needed.
Lastly...Any friend of the world is an enemy of God...So perhaps you need to rethink your (cough) 'logic' again (not that you ever do), but still...I live in hope.

and if you do not believe me then please seek out a second unbiased opinion and work on this if you don't want people you are communicating this to feel disrespected against your wishes.

I don't ask strangers to tell me the truth...I ask God who is truth.
And I don't care if people I communicate with feel disrespected...That's their bag.
...Pharisee behaviour always reacts like you did to truth....It's very predictable.  :laughing7:

I continued discussing this with you because I assume that you are not lying, ridiculous, ignorant, clueless person

You spoil me with your graciousness.

maybe you are just having a bad day

No...I don't really have bad days and I'm actually more upfront offline. 
...I was actually walking on eggshells around you because I sensed the 'drama' was on it's way.

or maybe you thought I was attacking you.

Why would I think that?  :Chinscratch: :laughing7:

Please ask an unbiased stranger who they think was being respectful or disrespectful, if you were being respectful, you will be vindicated and if you came across as disrespectful.

Again...Why would I care what a stranger says or thinks regarding truth about me (who doesn't know me) except God? I get my truth from God...From truth itself. - This 'stranger' whom you have on a pedestel higher than the Almighty might have the same father you do.

[jabcat]

Locked.