[quote=Trelow]It has to be. If one is to be a pacifist then one would have to never support acts of violence for any reason what so ever. One would be in support of those who by force and might would exterminate any who oppose them, simply because one would be against use of forces of arm to rectify the situation. One would thusly condemn the acts the Israelites commanded by God in the holy scriptures, and the acts of Jesus himself.
Pacifism is contrary to the nature of Christianity, and therefore heresy. Christianity requires the we exercise all the facilities given to us by the Lord our God, including common sense.
I guess the reason I asked was because my understanding of pacifism was different than I perceived the poster’s understanding to be. Here is what I got from the dictionary online:
*]The belief that disputes between nations should and can be settled peacefully.[list=1]
*]Opposition to war or violence as a means of resolving disputes.
*]Such opposition demonstrated by refusal to participate in military action.
[/list]Now, this is what I considered the definition to be. It seems to be more related to corporate relationships and not individual. For instance, I don’t believe war is the answer in settling all disputes. It is to be avoided at all costs. That’s different than someone trying to harm an innocent person and standing by and doing nothing about it.
I’m not arguing the point - just trying to clear up what is being discussed to make sure we are all on the same page. If we can’t even agree on what “pacifism” is then, we will never be able to intelligently discuss the issue.