Well said Carl

Thanks for your superficial reply couched in Christ-like love, of course. I spent too much time fleshing out concepts beyond mere verse citations. You repeated yourself without engaging in a more thoughtful response. I tried, but it feels like pearls before swine at this point. Sorry. Jesus said that. Take it up with Him.

Thanks for all your advice on punching people who punch me and all, but I think I might defer to a higher wisdom – that of Jesus who taught us to love our enemies and pray for our persecutors. I don’t mind if you disagree with me on American foreign policy but suggesting that an eye for an eye is “pretty Christlike” is kinda wacky when you consider it was actually Jesus who said, “You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’ But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also.” [Mt5:38-39]

Your provoking your competitor with words, which led to his punching you in the face, was definitely wrong of him. And your wanting revenge wasn’t primal, as if you were in mere beast mode, it was human. As in, the desire for justice. Eye for an eye was actually a just legal standard Israel brought to the world, evolving from gross murderous vindication, i.e. unjust retaliation. Jesus’ mentioning it was to add forgiveness and even love for our enemies instead of going hog wild further than what justice calls for. He was building on the principle. Not negating violence. Think dangerous and disciplined martial artist who can and will use violence if the situation calls for it. Including getting punched in the face in sports.

Blaming our Middle East involvement as exacerbating their sectarian divisions and conflict is backwards. We can debate whether we should have gone at all, and there are solid reasons why it was good to be proactive ( not reactive ) rather than passively enabling injustice, but to blame the U.S. contributing to greater violence is missing the macro view.

Conflating Jesus’ suffering with our day-to-day struggles and conflicts, between people, between countries, is overly simplistic. He was on a singular mission. Hate to break it to you, but I’m thinking you are not on that mission. If it helps, I am not, either. We have to deal with injustices in a completely different context. You conveniently left out Paul’s mentioning that the soldier is an Agent of God’s Wrath. Romans 13.

Christian pacifists seem to majorly forget, perhaps because they haven’t read all of the NT, or lie to themselves about the harder things of God: anger; wrath; judgment. How about how violent Jesus was in turning over tables and cracking the whip all the while proclaiming harsh, offensive judgments on the folks at the Temple. In today’s PC Progressive Christian mindset, if intellectually honest ( “Do not lie”), He would be viewed with disdain, as “in sin”, and needing to “be all about Love”. How offensive He was! He didn’t “turn the other cheek” on that one. Maybe because it isn’t all about physically turning the other cheek so that someone can punch our lights out. Maybe there’s more to it.

Your friend bringing up “overly dramatic” examples of criminal, disgusting violence is reality that people actually HAVE to deal with. You merely “turning aside” those examples is the stuff that makes us moral-contingent-pacifists ( EX: just wars ) shake our dang heads. It all sounds like Utopia can be reached if people just don’t commit evil anymore. No more violence. It also isn’t too helpful, rather condescending. We can actually disagree while attempting to listen and gain broader and deeper perspective on life. Real life.

We can get better, and to live in Revengeland is futile, but to speak against returning violence with violence is just irresponsible and lacking nuance. And dangerous in a bad way.

If you actually ever get punched again, I would hope you extend love to yourself to give yourself the room to entertain the possibility of returning violence as a way of an “eye for an eye”, to defend yourself, to speak to the dignity of your humanity, or at least someone else who needs defending. That is another way to bring safety, protection, justice and peace, to someone else’s life when they are the victim of violence. A version of laying down your life, risking it and its comfort, to serve another. It’s why soldiers defending our country can be among the most noble among us in being willing to die for another. Sounds pretty Christ-like.

We can at least agree on one thing: not questioning and examining our responses is where things can go haywire. “Can”. Pushing back on countries can actually quiet them down. There are cultures, it seems, that respond to Power and Violence as deterrent. Japan in WWII. In the spirit of your article: Returning Violence served our nation, the world, Justice and Peace. Back to your point: the scene in “Tombstone” where the lynch mob wants to enact their reactive “justice” at the jail, and Wyatt basically tells the crowd to knock it off and shut the hell up and go home, willing to actually die for that instruction (!), is an example of how cooler heads need to prevail in due process and justice.

To that degree, I respect your call to reflect upon a wide range of possibilities regarding violence. It appears you are not willing to entertain the wisdom and spirit of “other” possibilities as well.

A contingent or conditional pacifist is against war and violence in principle, but accepts reluctantly that there might be circumstances when war will be less bad than the alternative. Absolute pacifists are opposed to violence as a basic moral or spiritual principle, without regard to the results of war or violence. Us contingent pacifists would like to be absolute pacifists but can’t quite get there. Personally, I think if violence is adopted as a strategy it should be done with extreme reluctance, after all other options have been exhausted, and performed with great sadness and regret.