"The politics of those who goal is beyond time are always pacific; it is the idolaters of past and future, of reactionary memory and Utopian dream, who do the persecuting and make the wars." - ALDOUS HUXLEY

UNDER TOTAL CONSTRUCTION

This page needs a total revamp, a complete overhaul.

I'm a Pacifist . . . . within limitations

"Nonviolence is the greatest force at the disposal of mankind. It is mightier than the mightiest weapon of destruction devised by the ingenuity of man." GANDHI

The best way to destroy man is to destroy his spontaneity of love. If man has love, there can't be nations; nations exist on hate. The Indians hate the Pakistanis, and the Pakistanis hate the Indians only then can these two countries exist. if love appears, boundaries will disappear. If love appears, then who will be a Christian and then who will be a Jew" If love appears, religions will disappear."(1)

"In our society, murder is allowed but loving is not. If you are loving in public, it is thought to be obscene. Now this is absurd - love is obscene and murder is not obscene? Lovers are not to be loving in public, and generals can go on walking in public showing all their medals? These are the murderers and these medals are for the murder! Those medals show how much they have murdered, how many people they have killed. That is not obscene?" OSHO (2)

The Biblical Literalist View Does Not Support Pacifism But Ruthless Murder

Does God take sides in war? It certainly appears that God does not, and has no involvement, what so ever, with the many internal and external disagreements and wars, of the nations. Prayers to God are only answered "according to his will", which is the "knowledge" and "works" of "love" and "mercy." God does not select one nation over another, "for in every nation the man that fears God and works righteousness is acceptable to him." It is also evident that just as God does not intervene in human affairs in regards to much suffering and atrocities, until his future "appointed time", that he also applies the same non intervention in the carnal warfare of the nations of mankind.

Love Of Neighbor

But what about "love of neighbor?" Would not love of neighbor restrict the action of warfare of the true servants of Christ? The answer would appear to be yes, "for he that does not love his brother, who he has seen, can not be loving God, who he has not seen." Are there any exceptions? Those Christian denominations that are pacifists claim that their refusal to engage in warfare identifies them as the true Christians, truly "showing love among themselves" and "love of neighbor", making them "no part of the world." But is total and complete pacifism, in all cases, really the identifying mark of true Christians? Or are there any exceptions? (John 15:19-21; 1 John 5:14; Acts 10:34-35; 1 John 3:-)

The Hebrews Engaged In Carnal Warfare

True, in in Hebrew scriptures, God used his chosen people, the physical nation of Israel, to engage in carnal warfare, taking their side, actively supporting, fighting and shedding blood for themagainst other nations. However under the "new covenant", or Christian arrangement, God would choose people "out of all nations", who would make up a "spiritual nation of Israel", a "Heavenly Jerusalem." "For in every nation the man that fears God and works righteousness is acceptable to him."

Jesus Christ Did Not Use Carnal Warfare

Jesus Christ, "the exact reflection of God", conquered the world with his faith. In his weakness of allowing and submitting to wickedness, he bought mankind back to God with his perfect blood. "For the son of man came as a ransom in exchange for many." As "ambassadors of Christ", can true Christians be killing one another and still be loving on another? Are there any exceptions? (Matt 20:28)

Jesus' Instructions Not To Live By The Sword
In Personal Disputes

What did the mediator of the new covenant, Jesus Christ, teach about warfare? He first instructed his disciples to preach among the Jews. Since they were a hospitable people, he instructed them not to take food pouches, extra garments and their weapons, swords. However, at a later time, when he instructed his disciples to preach, he specifically told them to bring their swords, even selling their outer garments to purchase one. The very next day, when Judas Iscariot came with soldiers to take Christ away to be arrested, Peter drew out his sword and cut off one of the soldier's ear. Jesus immediately healed the soldier and told Peter to "return your sword to its place, for those who live by the sword, will die by the sword." (Heb 12:22; 9:24,15; Matt 10:10; 26:51-52; Luke 9:3; 22:35-36; Acts 10:34-35)

Why did Jesus first instruct his disciples to take their swords with them and then tell Peter not to use his, on the arresting soldier, the very next day? Certainly, this was not some type of object lesson, as the Watchtower Society and some other religious groups would like to interpret. Rather, swords or weapons, have both an allowable and non allowable use. For instance, as in the above case with Jesus. Those who live by violence to settle personal disputes are not loving their neighbor but are enemies of God.

Apostle Paul's Approval Of
The Governments Use Of The Sword

Apostle Paul, when speaking about human governments, states that they act as "God's minister" to both those who do good and bad. "If you are doing what is bad, be in fear: for it is not without purpose that it bears the sword; for it is God's minister." Back in Paul's day, there were no police forces in Israel and Rome, for there solely existed the Roman armies and the Sanhedrin Court, who administered the "sword" to "those who were doing what is bad." The Roman armies would thus engage in individual, group and national disturbances. This of course, included carnal warfare. On the other hand, to live by the rule of using the sword or violence to settle personal disputes, is not in harmony with Christ's teachings. (Romans 13:4; 12:17-21)

"A Time For War, A Time For Peace"
- Proverbs 3:

Biblical Literalist - Human Reasonings

When it comes to warfare, "Each of us will render an account for himself to God." Wars have different causes and it is up to each individual, himself, to decide whether their conscience permits involvement. Each individual must determine himself what the line is between "living by the sword" and the "superior authorities" "bearing the sword" and if, in each and every case, going to war and killing other people is against Christ's teachings of loving one's neighbor, or if there are any exceptions. However, rather then an entire religious denomination be viewed as blood guilty for condoning warfare, it is "each individual that will render and account himself for his actions". (Romans 14:12)

During World War II, Nazi Germany with Adolph Hitler came very close to global domination and

Complete Pacifism Is Not The Answer

1. When King Saul showed a degree of pacifism by refusing to put ALL the people to death, it was considered a lack of "obedience", holding him responsible by God. 2.When Eli exhibited pacifism by his refusal to punish his two wicked sons, all three of them were held accountable.

Every war is different. WWII for the States, was one of national defense, while the Vietnam and Desert Storm were both of other country intervention.

would have most likely succeeded if it were not for Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States involvement in the war. On the other hand, the war in Iraq with the hostile takeover of the oil wells in Kuwait, is an entirely different type of war. The Vietnam war was also of a completely different nature. Each individual must decide for himself whether this pertains to the governments as "God's minister" that "bears the sword" or "not to live by the sword" to settle disputes. Each one must also decide about involvement in warfare, including the consequences, and will "render and account for himself to God." As King Solomon put it, "For everything there is an appointed time ... for every affair under the sun ... a time to kill and a time to heal ... a time for war and a time for peace (Ecc 3:1,3,8)

For every action there comes responsibility. On the human realm of survival, pacifism can be both good and bad, both  beneficial and detrimental. The biblical account of King Saul showing a degree of pacifism by refusing to put ALL the people to death, it was considered a lack of "obedience", holding him responsible by God. When Eli refused to punish his two wicked sons, all three of them were held accountable. Anotherwards, pacifism can be both serving God and not serving God. For if one government uses the "sword" to stop "those who are doing bad", they are helping the innocent from suffering and acting as "God's minister", however if the same government refuses to use the "sword" on those "doing bad", allowing them to create anarchy, destruction and murder, then they are accountable for their refusal and prevention of the suffering of innocent people. (1 Samuel 15:20-22; 3:12-14)

At the same token if one uses the "sword" settle personal disputes, "he will die by the sword", however if that same persons uses the "sword" as direction from "Gods minister", the "superior authorities", the human governments, for the punishment of those "doing bad", it can be said that this person is either doing God's will, or not going against God's will.

"We Do Not Wage Warfare According To The Flesh"
- 2 Corinthians 10:3, 4

Apostles Paul words at 2 Corinthians 10:3 and 4 state, "For though we walk in the flesh, we do not wage warfare according to the flesh. For the weapons of our warfare are not fleshly, but powerful by God for overturning ... reasonings and every lofty thing raised up against the knowledge of God ... we are bringing every thought into captivity to make it obedient to Christ." Does this relate to carnal warfare? What does the context show? The context of this chapter shows Paul to be speaking about himself not to be using "bold measures against some of the Corinthians who assume his behavior to be dictated by human weakness", "as if he walked according to the flesh." No Paul did not use the "fleshly" way of "boasting, "recommending" and "trusting in himself", using his own "authority" as a "weapon" to "fight his battles against the Corinthians. Here, the Corinthians were saying about Paul, "His letters are weighty and forceful, but his presence in person is weak and his speech contemptible." Still, although Paul walked according to the flesh, he did not use the fleshly warfare of boasting and exercising his authority over others. "For not the one who recommends himself is approved, but the man whom God recommends." Clearly, the context, of 1 Corinthians chapter 10, does not have anything to do with carnal warfare between the nations. To quote this above scripture in support of the wrongness of carnal warfare, is to completely misquote the words out of context. (1 Cor 10)

Now read Paul's words in 1 Corinthians chapter 13 on what love is. Love is unconditional, there is no revenge in the impartial, non-judgmental, life force of God. The same force that opens a flower and brings forth it's color, only to close it when the earth leaves the sun, is the same unconditional love that allows all free choice to exist.

"Nation Will Not Lift Up Sword Against Nation,
Neither Will They Learn War Anymore" - Isaiah 2

As far as Isaiah chapter 2 and Micah chapter 4, where it speaks of God's servants "beating their

"Nation Will Not Lift Up Sword Against Nation, Neither Will They Learn War Anymore" - Isaiah 2

Just as we neither see, an end to starvation, disease and natural disasters, it is not the time for mankind to see an end to warfare. To preach that pacifism is the only way of holding integrity to God is to misapply prophecies that have not taken place in a divine manner and replace them with man made restrictions.

swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning shears" and "Nation will not lift up sword against nation, neither will they learn war anymore." These words are obviously future prophecy. Nations are still warring just as they have from the beginning. Starvation, disease and suffering still exist today as from the beginning. Only after God finally steps in at his "appointed time" can the above scriptures have any fulfillment. To claim that any Christians are not in harmony with the above, is to say they are going against a prophecy, not a commandment. Our commandment is to "love one another." In some cases defending a nation against an oppressor can be loving, while in other cases fighting for a nation can be wicked. Each one of us must use our own "perceptive powers to distinguish what is right and wrong" on every individual circumstance. (Hab 2:3; Rev 11:18; Dan 2:44; 12:7)

Can People Reason With Unreasonable People?

Can People Reason With Unreasonable People?

It would seem the only logical answer to the many quoted accounts of murder on God's part would be the explanation of men. On the spiritual level, being "good" is willing to be wronged, patiently seeing the impartial life force of unconditional love that is the very essence of all life and being.

Can men instruct the instinct of an animal otherwise? These are of course normal impossibilities. Although these may be inherited behaviors and instincts, certain cultures of man are taught ways that become so ingrained in his being that it is although he has inherited it as an instinct.

Case in point: the fundamentalist Muslims from abroad, such as the Palestinians and other extremist groups. Time and time again it has been shown that the effort of peace talks and the use of reason bears rotten fruitage. It is comparable to the attempt to rehabilitate hardened criminals. Some can be rehabilitated, but when they become "hardened," the rehabilitation becomes in vain and cannot produce fit persons to live in our society without the harmful actions towards others. This can be likened to certain groups and cultures of people that are fundamentally unteachable. Their way of life respects no other, culture and teachings harming those around them with senseless murders and hardship. Their way of life will not change with peace talks, the use of reason, nor the showing of mercy.

Does this mean force must be used against force?

Amazing when you look at water. It is one the strongest forces known and yet it conquers through yielding, through giving in and allowing, bending in flexibility. And yet this force is so powerful that it can overtake the entire planet and civilization along with it. So now what? Does this mean the force of man must be used against with further force? What is it you are defending against? Liberty? Justice? Freedom? What does war accomplish? Freedom? Justice? The use of mercy in the realm of unconditional love has no limitations. . . . under contruction.