This entry was posted
on Wednesday, February 3rd, 2010 at 5:41 am and is filed under Uncategorized.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
yep… remark in the new testoment is going against this “eye for an eye” simetry, so it should be looked in that context… in a more practical sence some times its more subversive not to react to provocations cause it some elses playing field, not yours… im not going into the whole legislative issue here, instead talking about practical every day stuff in wich one is confronted…
Nope. Radical pacifism does nothing against violence. By not resisting you are providing direct support for the act and thus endangering other potential victims of that person. The answer between this extreme and the other one (“an eye for an eye”) is resistance but with more benign methods, e.g. you don’t kill a killer, you put him in prison.
hi… just a quick remark… i think that a point that jesus wanted to make with his “if they hit you with a stone you hit the with bread”(or however does it go) is to escape the perpetuing circle… to reverse the logic by some contraintuitive (from the “circles” point) gesture… i that sence his approach to violence was more radical then some aggressive reaction that may hurt the Other but it does nothing to the underlyng logic of violence…
… pozdrav…
February 3rd, 2010 at 6:22 am
yep… remark in the new testoment is going against this “eye for an eye” simetry, so it should be looked in that context… in a more practical sence some times its more subversive not to react to provocations cause it some elses playing field, not yours… im not going into the whole legislative issue here, instead talking about practical every day stuff in wich one is confronted…
February 3rd, 2010 at 7:21 am
Nope. Radical pacifism does nothing against violence. By not resisting you are providing direct support for the act and thus endangering other potential victims of that person. The answer between this extreme and the other one (“an eye for an eye”) is resistance but with more benign methods, e.g. you don’t kill a killer, you put him in prison.
February 3rd, 2010 at 8:17 am
hi… just a quick remark… i think that a point that jesus wanted to make with his “if they hit you with a stone you hit the with bread”(or however does it go) is to escape the perpetuing circle… to reverse the logic by some contraintuitive (from the “circles” point) gesture… i that sence his approach to violence was more radical then some aggressive reaction that may hurt the Other but it does nothing to the underlyng logic of violence…
… pozdrav…