A calm look at one central question

[MaryM]

I would like a calm, objective, philosophical reflection on the essence of retaliation/revenge when violence has happened.

So, if someone kills your family, what results if you kill their family? Two sets of innocent people die. When such a thing happens, can it bring justice or satisfaction?

I request a non-political, non-emotional set of thoughts on this please. Hard though this is. Everywhere people are arguing with hearts that have hardened.

I personally do not have knowledge of politics, all I am thinking of, as a woman and as a mother and a grandmother, is that children and women are suffering in the Israel/Gaza conflict on both sides. This is extreme tragedy. How can it ever be resolved?

Please don't fight with words, just look at the question and give your view.

 

[maxwel]

I would like a calm, objective, philosophical reflection on the essence of retaliation/revenge when violence has happened.

So, if someone kills your family, what results if you kill their family? Two sets of innocent people die. When such a thing happens, can it bring justice or satisfaction?

I request a non-political, non-emotional set of thoughts on this please. Hard though this is. Everywhere people are arguing with hearts that have hardened.

I personally do not have knowledge of politics, all I am thinking of, as a woman and as a mother and a grandmother, is that children and women are suffering in the Israel/Gaza conflict on both sides. This is extreme tragedy. How can it ever be resolved?

Please don't fight with words, just look at the question and give your view.

Perhaps Not the Best Choice of Analogy:
1.) We probably shouldn't use a personal analogy to understand an international problem.
2.) Why?
3.) The ethics of a personal conflict may encompass entirely different issues than the ethics of a national conflict.

We don't want to compare apples and oranges.

Better Analogy?
1.) It may be best to skip analogies, and not even try to use one - a reductionistic reframing is too likely to create points of error.
2.) If your point is to talk about Israel/Gaza (and you said it is), then you should probably ask questions about Israel/Gaza.
3.) It's probably a mistake to reframe a complex international issue as a simple problem between two people... it's probably better to just talk about the actual international issue.

Some Discussion on Retaliation:
1.) If we were really going to dig into this, we'd have to define "retaliate" very specifically, as it relates to personal conflicts, and then we'd have to define it very specifically as it relates to international conflicts.
2.) Then we'd have to consider, based on our new and careful definitions, if there are ever circumstances where retaliation is appropriate.
3.) We would probably find that is IS sometimes appropriate, depending on the definition of retaliation that we use, and depending on the circumstances.


God Bless.

.
.

 

[ThereRoseaLamb]

Perhaps Not the Best Choice of Analogy:
1.) We probably shouldn't use a personal analogy to understand an international problem.
2.) Why?
3.) The ethics of a personal conflict may encompass entirely different issues than the ethics of a national conflict.

We don't want to compare apples and oranges.

Better Analogy?
1.) It may be best to skip analogies, and not even try to use one - a reductionistic reframing is too likely to create points of error.
2.) If your point is to talk about Israel/Gaza (and you said it is), then you should probably ask questions about Israel/Gaza.
3.) It's probably a mistake to reframe a complex international issue as a simple problem between two people... it's probably better to just talk about the actual international issue.

Some Discussion on Retaliation:
1.) If we were really going to dig into this, we'd have to define "retaliate" very specifically, as it relates to personal conflicts, and then we'd have to define it very specifically as it relates to international conflicts.
2.) Then we'd have to consider, based on our new and careful definitions, if there are ever circumstances where retaliation is appropriate.
3.) We would probably find that is IS sometimes appropriate, depending on the definition of retaliation that we use, and depending on the circumstances.


God Bless.

.
.

Totally agree here. There is a long history behind all of this, then years of back and forth. We're not OT here so we can't go that route. It seems a very tricky issue to solve and it doesn't help when people believe propaganda. As I said in another post, there are children in war zones all over the world, but I have never seen threads where people are upset about these children. I would bet a lot of people here don't personally know a missionary and certainly don't give in support of their work. Which is why the term antisemitism comes in to the picture. And hypocrite along with it. Sorry, that's my honest feelings.

 

[Gideon300]

I would like a calm, objective, philosophical reflection on the essence of retaliation/revenge when violence has happened.

So, if someone kills your family, what results if you kill their family? Two sets of innocent people die. When such a thing happens, can it bring justice or satisfaction?

I request a non-political, non-emotional set of thoughts on this please. Hard though this is. Everywhere people are arguing with hearts that have hardened.

I personally do not have knowledge of politics, all I am thinking of, as a woman and as a mother and a grandmother, is that children and women are suffering in the Israel/Gaza conflict on both sides. This is extreme tragedy. How can it ever be resolved?

Please don't fight with words, just look at the question and give your view.

Resolving conflict requires good faith on both sides. Hamas has attacked Israel many times since 2006. Israel left Gaza to self rule and that's how Gazans repaid them. There is no good faith from Hamas. Gazans support terrorists. How many times would you put up with your neighbours burning down your house before calling in the police?

The war is not about revenge. it is about keeping the innocent safe from those who have no conscience. Hamas does not care about the innocent, as they prove by how they treat their own people, let alone Israelis. Gaza would be far better off without Hamas and the others who seek the destruction of Israel. Hamas uses Gazans as pawns in its own game.

If it was any nation apart from Israel, the world would tut tut and move on. Turkey bombs the Kurds. Syria uses chemical weapons on its own citizens. Russia continues to target civilians in Ukraine. Where is the outrage? Where are the street marches? How about the civil wars raging in North Africa? South Africa withdrew its ambassador. There are 70 murders a day in South Africa. Why don't they clean up their own back yard?

I am ex military so I know a little about war. I can tell you that it is most unusual to warn people before you bomb them. Israel has routinely warned civilians of impending attacks. That's because Israel targets the bad guys. I do not necessarily believe Israel is completely altruistic. They know that the world applies a standard to Israel that no one else has to meet. It is also not helpful politically internally to kill civilians. Unlike everywhere else in the Middle East, Israel is a democracy. Governments can be voted out. Israelis are a varied bunch. Their views range from nuke Iran to the stone age to stop the war now.

Israel's biggest mistake was to tolerate Hamas for so long. Hamas should have been smashed before they grew strong enough to mount the attack on 7th October.

I write this from a pragmatic point of view. Israel is not a Christian nation and should not be expected to behave as if it was. And what country, Christian or not, would tolerate continual violence as Hamas has carried out?

I've said all along that those who condemn Israel need to come up with a plan that does not involve the end of Israel. So far, not a word from the armchair "experts" and critics.

 

[MaryM]

It is very helpful to hear these views above. Do forgive my rather clumsy question and analogy, I do not know much about it all. My view stems from horror at the immense suffering of the innocents on such a scale. The babies, the women, the children.
I also do not know who to believe, everyone has an opinion, so many hearts are hardened, perhaps with good reason.

 

[Lynx]

I would like a calm, objective, philosophical reflection on the essence of retaliation/revenge when violence has happened.

So, if someone kills your family, what results if you kill their family? Two sets of innocent people die. When such a thing happens, can it bring justice or satisfaction?

I request a non-political, non-emotional set of thoughts on this please. Hard though this is. Everywhere people are arguing with hearts that have hardened.

I personally do not have knowledge of politics, all I am thinking of, as a woman and as a mother and a grandmother, is that children and women are suffering in the Israel/Gaza conflict on both sides. This is extreme tragedy. How can it ever be resolved?

Please don't fight with words, just look at the question and give your view.

God occasionally ordered retaliation, and sometimes even specified the Israelites should not have pity on the women and children.

So yeah, it's a situational thing.

 

[Eli1]

This is a question of suffering.
The thing about suffering if that you don’t understand suffering until you get suffering.
And even when you do get suffering, you’re first confused, in anger or in shock or in pure fight or flight mode. And God hasn’t entered the picture yet. But when God does, that’s when you realize that your worldview is so narrow and your new picture is so complex and heavy that the only logical thing is to leave this burden to God and ask for mercy and healing.

And as far as war goes, this man is my hero : Private First Class Desmond Doss.

 

[MaryM]

God occasionally ordered retaliation, and sometimes even specified the Israelites should not have pity on the women and children.

So yeah, it's a situational thing.

Now that I find hard to reconcile with a loving God.
As far as I know, Christ never directed anyone to violence. It is Him I place my faith in.

 

[Cameron143]

Now that I find hard to reconcile with a loving God.
As far as I know, Christ never directed anyone to violence. It is Him I place my faith in.

Jesus said at one place He came not to bring peace, but a sword...Matthew 10:34-36. The balance of God's love with His holiness and justice is a difficult subject for some. But we find both throughout the Bible. It was God's justice that brought about the cross through which we have peace with God. Often it is through judgment that salvation is found. Noah was delivered through the judgment of the world.
I share these examples to illustrate that God is both loving and just. Each of us has to work it out for ourselves.

 

[Lynx]

Now that I find hard to reconcile with a loving God.
As far as I know, Christ never directed anyone to violence. It is Him I place my faith in.

Run a bible word search for "thine eye" and you'll get some results.
Deuteronomy 7:16, 13:8, 15:9, 19:13, 19:21, 25:12...

 

[MaryM]

Jesus said at one place He came not to bring peace, but a sword...Matthew 10:34-36. The balance of God's love with His holiness and justice is a difficult subject for some. But we find both throughout the Bible. It was God's justice that brought about the cross through which we have peace with God. Often it is through judgment that salvation is found. Noah was delivered through the judgment of the world.
I share these examples to illustrate that God is both loving and just. Each of us has to work it out for ourselves.

The sword Jesus mentioned was just an image, I am certain.
He never ever harmed anyone nor asked his followers to. Indeed even when arrested , He told his men not to resist and he healed the soldier's ear that had been injured.
All he did was preach love and peace. He even said if we live in slavery, we must obey our masters.

 

[MaryM]

Run a bible word search for "thine eye" and you'll get some results.
Deuteronomy 7:16, 13:8, 15:9, 19:13, 19:21, 25:12...

Imagery, I am certain.

 

[JaumeJ]

The two edged sword of His Mouth. The Truth from our Maker, Jesus Yeshua.

 

[Lynx]

Imagery, I am certain.

No... No, that looked pretty literal the way he was saying it.

 

[Tall_Timbers]

Now that I find hard to reconcile with a loving God.

Then read your Bible. God is. He is not what in our ignorance we might imagine Him to be.

 

[ThereRoseaLamb]

Resolving conflict requires good faith on both sides. Hamas has attacked Israel many times since 2006. Israel left Gaza to self rule and that's how Gazans repaid them. There is no good faith from Hamas. Gazans support terrorists. How many times would you put up with your neighbours burning down your house before calling in the police?

The war is not about revenge. it is about keeping the innocent safe from those who have no conscience. Hamas does not care about the innocent, as they prove by how they treat their own people, let alone Israelis. Gaza would be far better off without Hamas and the others who seek the destruction of Israel. Hamas uses Gazans as pawns in its own game.

If it was any nation apart from Israel, the world would tut tut and move on. Turkey bombs the Kurds. Syria uses chemical weapons on its own citizens. Russia continues to target civilians in Ukraine. Where is the outrage? Where are the street marches? How about the civil wars raging in North Africa? South Africa withdrew its ambassador. There are 70 murders a day in South Africa. Why don't they clean up their own back yard?

I am ex military so I know a little about war. I can tell you that it is most unusual to warn people before you bomb them. Israel has routinely warned civilians of impending attacks. That's because Israel targets the bad guys. I do not necessarily believe Israel is completely altruistic. They know that the world applies a standard to Israel that no one else has to meet. It is also not helpful politically internally to kill civilians. Unlike everywhere else in the Middle East, Israel is a democracy. Governments can be voted out. Israelis are a varied bunch. Their views range from nuke Iran to the stone age to stop the war now.

Israel's biggest mistake was to tolerate Hamas for so long. Hamas should have been smashed before they grew strong enough to mount the attack on 7th October.

I write this from a pragmatic point of view. Israel is not a Christian nation and should not be expected to behave as if it was. And what country, Christian or not, would tolerate continual violence as Hamas has carried out?

I've said all along that those who condemn Israel need to come up with a plan that does not involve the end of Israel. So far, not a word from the armchair "experts" and critics.

Thank you for this thoughtful answer. People don't understand that no matter how you slice it it comes down to this, the land belongs to Israel. They have a proven 3000 yr history in the land. They are willing to give up land for peace and have already done so. If Hamas wanted peace the last thing they would do is start a war, they know how Israel feels about their people. The solution is to eradicate the terrorists, and get a peace plan in place. But first, Hamas and it's supporters have to go. And there are countries around the area that know that and are hoping Israel does it for them.

 

[Bob-Carabbio]

I would like a calm, objective, philosophical reflection on the essence of retaliation/revenge when violence has happened.

So, if someone kills your family, what results if you kill their family? Two sets of innocent people die. When such a thing happens, can it bring justice or satisfaction?

"Retaliation" is a normal Human reaction. In the OLD testament, there were cities of refuge, that the "Avenger of blood" couldn't enter, and the one ACCIDENTALLY killing a person could be safe in - until the high priest died.

Christians DON'T Retaliate, and are called to FORGIVE. If one DOESN'T forgive, then they're "bound" to the offence, and are no longer free to live their lives.

In the Middle eastern mess, "Christians" aren't involved for the most part, and Israel will continue their actions, until their "Blood Lust" is satiated. There will be NO PEACE, and NO SATISFACTION in the region.

 

[ThereRoseaLamb]

This is a question of suffering.
The thing about suffering if that you don’t understand suffering until you get suffering.
And even when you do get suffering, you’re first confused, in anger or in shock or in pure fight or flight mode. And God hasn’t entered the picture yet. But when God does, that’s when you realize that your worldview is so narrow and your new picture is so complex and heavy that the only logical thing is to leave this burden to God and ask for mercy and healing.

And as far as war goes, this man is my hero : Private First Class Desmond Doss.

That movie was amazing, hubby and I have watched it several times. The young man that played him did him justice I believe. I'm glad someone got hold of his life story so we could know this man. But in my humble opinion, anyone willing to serve is a hero.

 

[ThereRoseaLamb]

The sword Jesus mentioned was just an image, I am certain.
He never ever harmed anyone nor asked his followers to. Indeed even when arrested , He told his men not to resist and he healed the soldier's ear that had been injured.
All he did was preach love and peace. He even said if we live in slavery, we must obey our masters.

Sorry, I don't mean to be rude, I mean this with all sincerity. But the God of the OT is the Jesus of the NT. They are of one mind. I am shocked when I hear a Christian say "Jesus was all love". Jesus is God, one mind, never changing. God is love, but as has been said, God is also just. So you put your trust in God, not Jesus alone, they are one. The God of the OT and the Jesus of the NT are in complete agreement.