Pacifism on Facebook

Lydia Wordpower Glider-Shelley

Just to call attention to some things on my blog post, "Pacifism and Civilization,"which I linked to when I said pacifism and NAP are, in my mind, identical.

Pacifists never fight back.

If you read the first few paragraphs of that link, would you say that using a shield is "fighting back?"

3 hrs Like 1


Anand Venigalla


The pacifist creed forbids all use of violence, even in self-defense.

"Violence" and "aggression" need to be defined. As I try to illustrate in the story in that link, an act could be considered "violence" if it were the initiation of force, but would not be considered "violence" if done in "self-defense." In both cases it is the same outward physical act: a piece of metal destroys a piece of wood. The act of "violence" when used in self-defense is not considered "aggression."

It is a tort, and arguably "violence," to use a drug as a "date-rape drug," but not "aggression" to use the same drug in self-defense to disable an attacker, even though the physical result is the same (the other party is knocked out cold).

The non-aggression axiom/principle believes that violence is justified in self-defense and/or retaliatory and or revolutionary violence against the State. There are variations in some cases of the NAP, but all formulations of it permit self-defense, while others (like Rothbard and Kinsella) believe it allows for punishment violence and retaliatory violence.

Some make the argument that retaliation, which is clearly an act of "violence" or "aggression," is not a violation of the "non-aggression principle." I don't think the argument is persuasive. "Retaliation" begins when the initial attack is over and completed. "Self-defense" does not apply in this situation because the attack is over. The "defender" is no longer in apprehension of an imminent battery, which is the definition of "attack" or "assault" or "aggression." Even though the attack is over, the defender retaliates against the former attacker, initiating aggression and escalating the violence.

"Retaliation" = vengeance, which is prohibited by Christ in the Sermon on the Mount, and Paul in Romans 12.

Revolution is also plainly prohibited in the New Testament.

3 hrs   Like  · 3


Trol Buster


A pacifist is generally defined as a person who is opposed to the use of violence for any reason. According to this definition, Jesus could not be defined as a pacifist.

Jesus was both God and Man. As a Man He was a pacifist and commanded His human followers to be pacifists. Paul says we are to leave vengeance to God, which Jesus executed as Judge (Matthew 23-25) in the "days of vengeance" (Luke 21:22; AD 68-70)

Why not? First, Matthew 10:34-36 teaches, "Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. And a person's enemies will be those of his own household." Jesus clearly taught His role would include conflict.

"Sword" is rhetorical language for "disagreement." Disagreement does not constitution "aggression," and so does not violate the NAP.
Elsewhere in Matthew chap. 10, Jesus prophesies that there will be persecution, which is clearly a violation of the NAP, but Jesus does not give persecution His moral seal of approval, He only predicts it.

Second, Jesus personally expressed the fact that war would take place until the end. He accepted the reality of war despite His peaceful role on earth. Matthew 24:6 notes, "you will hear of wars and rumors of wars. See that you are not alarmed, for this must take place, but the end is not yet." This appears to confirm other biblical passages, such as Ecclesiastes 3:8: "a time for war, and a time for peace."

As with persecution, Jesus predicts war, which is a violation of the NAP, but Jesus doesn't approve of those who are prosecuting these wars. He only predicts them.

Third, Jesus is seen as a warrior upon His next return to earth when He will defeat Satan and those who oppose Him in the Battle of Armageddon and at the end of the Millennium (Revelation 20:7-10). Only after this time will there be a new heaven and new earth in which there is total peace and no need for conflict or war.

I am a preterist, and as such I believe that the Book of Revelation is John's parallel to the Olivet Discourse in Matthew 24-25, Luke 21, and Mark 13 (not included in John's Gospel).

“Revelation of Jesus Christ which God gave him to shew his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and sending by his angel he signified it to his servant John.” (Rev. 1:1)

“Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of the prophecy and keep the things written in it; for the time is at hand.” (Rev. 1:3)

“Because thou hast kept the word of my patience, I also will keep thee from the hour of trial that is about to come on all the habitable world, to try those that dwell on the earth. I am coming quickly: hold fast that which thou hast, that no one take thy crown.” (Rev. 3:10-11)

“And he said to me, These words are faithful and true; and the Lord God of the spirits of the prophets hath sent his angel to shew his servants the things which must come to passshortly. And, behold, I am coming quickly: blessed is he that keepeth the words of the prophecy of this book.” (Rev. 22:6-7)

“And he saith to me, Seal not the words of the prophecy of this book: for the time is at hand.” (Rev. 22:10)

Behold, I am coming quickly; and my reward with me to give each as his work is.” (Rev. 22:12)

“He that testifieth these things saith, Yea, I am coming quickly. Amen! Come, Lord Jesus.” (Rev. 22:20)

Jesus said the eschatological events in the Book of Revelation would happen to "this generation" (the generation that witnessed Him and crucified Him), that is, before some of them standing there would die (Matthew 16:27-28)

None of these prophecies are moral or ethical endorsements of the actions of those who were condemned for carrying them out.

2 hrs  ·  Edited   ·  Like · 1


Sean Porbin


War is the act of good unwilling to succumb to conquest.

War is the act of disobedience to the Prince of Peace.

America classically fights for freedom, not conquest or imperialism. Simple fact... Of all the countries we have invaded, NONE fly our flag, ALL remain sovereign with their OWN governments and their OWN economies.

"Classically" here means "as portrayed by state instruments of propaganda." America has been characterized by imperialism since at least the invasion of the Phillippines. Since I was born, the U.S. government has killed, crippled, or made homeless tens of millions of innocent non-combatant civilians, and nobody, here or there, was made more free. Not only through outward military invasion and occupation, but by post-war mercantilism. All of the countries we have invaded are compelled to use USDollars, which is far more important than the color of the flag. Their governments are hobbled by treaties they were forced to sign, and their economies, tied to the Dollar, are also managed by trade agreements and other restrictions by U.S.-controlled international agencies like the World Bank and IMF

Compare that to Imperial Britain, Imperial Rome, or Imperial Islam.

The U.S. is worse than them all.

Non aggression will resist conquest and isolate it... Freedom.


- “A standing military force, with an overgrown Executive will not long be safe companions to liberty. The means of defence agst. foreign danger, have been always the instruments of tyranny at home. Among the Romans it was a standing maxim to excite a war, whenever a revolt was apprehended. Throughout all Europe, the armies kept up under the pretext of defending, have enslaved the people.”
James Madison, Constitutional Convention [June 29, 1787]

- “In war, too, the discretionary power of the Executive is extended; its influence in dealing out offices, honors, and emoluments is multiplied; and all the means of seducing the minds, are added to those of subduing the force, of the people …. [There is also an] inequality of fortunes, and the opportunities of fraud, growing out of a state of war, and … degeneracy of manners and of morals…. No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare.”

Pacifists will succumb to conquest, in the name of "peace", and assume the identity of their slave master.

If Christians are invaded and occupied by Muslims, they will not (or at least should not) "assume the identity of their [Muslim] slave masters." Jesus clearly prohibited "national defense" and Christian slaves are to obey their invading masters as they would Christ Himself.

The differences between the Republicrat and Demoblican regime in Washington D.C. and the regime in Beijing or Tehran are not worth killing human beings over. Christians are commanded to submit to them all, as Jesus did.

1 hr  ·  Like


Discussion continues here.