Christian and Pro-war?

[Tlaloc]

Trelow:

To be a christian is to be called to war.
To do battle aginst the forces of Satan, and when necessary his minions.

A spiritual war against evil is a little bit different than killing your fellow human being on the physical plane.

 

[Tlaloc]

Prometheum_x:

That is entirely possible. I was just throwing it out there for consideration. Arguments from silence tend to be rather weak.

I tend to agree.

No, I would tell you that I believe that every government continues to exist only as long as it is sustained by God.

Interesting. Wouldn’t that then be an argument against war as injust governments will falter once God removes his favor? War would be Man’s attempt to meddle with the divine right to sustain or destroy governments.

 

[Tlaloc]

Brendan:

So that means one of 3 Things,

1. Christ is pacifist, but changed His Mind when he ordered Joan to go to war
2. It was really heavenly angels operating against Christ’s Wishes
3. The Church is wrong, the voices were either insanity or Satan.

(there actually is a 4th, that Christ sent the voices and approved of the war Joan was to fight)

Which one of the above is your premise?

In that case I’d have to say the church was mistaken or operating out of its own self interest as it often did during the middle ages.

And You didn’t comment on the moral law still being valid.

I disagreed with your interpretation that you can pick and choose which parts of the old testament are still valid. It seems clear that when Christ said the old covenant was fulfilled he didn’t just mean subclauses 1, 6, and 13 parts F through J.

Are Catholics to hold to the 10 Commandments, even though they are Old Testament.

They can serve as a guide assuming they aren’t countermanded by Christ’s teachings but no they aren’t law. In the first place they were only law for the Jews. They never applied to anyone else. Thats part of the reason for the new covenant with all mankind.

 

[Tlaloc]

Brendan:

There is also Luke 3:
Did Christ tell the soldiers to leave their profession? To refuse to fight in wars.

No - He told them not to extort money and make false accusations.

Is that what you would tell a soldier? Or someone entering the Army?

already covered above.

 

[Tlaloc]

manualman:

You strain the example of Jesus too hard. In spite of the popularity of the WWJD fad, there are some unique things about Jesus that must be remembered:

1. HE WAS GOD!
2. He came specifically to die at the hands of humanity in order to redeem us.

It is reasonable to conclude His personal example of total pacifism is more related to the above then any total prohibition against any violence for any reason, no? Had he fought off his false accusers, #2 would not have been accomplished.

It just as easy to argue though that any given christian who suffers violence was put here specifically by God to be a martyr. Why assume you know the plan rather than take Christ at his word?

 

[Tlaloc]

caroljm36:

Scripture aside, where is the common sense here? Was it wrong to declare war on Japan after Pearl Harbor? Wrong to fight Nazi Germany after it declared war on us? I don’t think so. It would have been sinfully irresponsible for our government to do anything less.

I’ve yet to see anything to explain how a Christian can say any war is justified. Evils will occur but the faith clearly says your role is to endure them and leave the judgement to God. I can make an exception for Catholicism due to the unique nature of how it sees the Pope’s role in the church. But for any other faith being Christian has to mean being a pacifist based on the scripture.

 

[Prometheum_x]

Tlaloc:

Interesting. Wouldn’t that then be an argument against war as injust governments will falter once God removes his favor? War would be Man’s attempt to meddle with the divine right to sustain or destroy governments.

Except that, as is illustrated in example after example in the Old Testament, God often uses one nation to destroy another nation. Even if it was true that man should have no influence on the divine right to sustain or destroy governments, there are many wars which do not result in the destruction of either government, nor is that their intent.

As the passage from Romans 13 indicated, the secular authorities are in a way agents of God. I as an individual do not have the right to the “sword” – not because it is inherently immoral, but because that right has not been delegated to me. It is a responsibility delegated to the state.

The state then can pursue justice even against a foreign state, not on their own authority, but only insofar as they have been given that responsibility by God.

 

[manualman]

Your position is staked soley on one quote. You refuse to consider context, scripture as a whole, or the fact that Christ would have been overturning a major moral concept held by Judaism with one statement that could (as discussed) have other meanings.

In short, your argument is little different than some who say “the bible says ‘Thou shall not kill’ therefore I only eat vegetables.”

 

[Tlaloc]

manualman:

Your position is staked soley on one quote.

Actually I provided at least three, plus the evidence of how Christ himself acted.

The rest of your statement is equally invalid. You attribute to me the actions of others (I’m the one actually considering context, remember?).

The pro-war argument so far has consistently boiled down to one of two positions:

1. it says its okay in the Old Testament
2. in a given example Jesus doesn’t go out of his way to say once again that violence isn’t okay

No one so far has provided a single New Testament quote in which Jesus openly says violence is okay, or in which Jesus is himself violent toward others.

 

[Tlaloc]

manualman:

Your position is staked soley on one quote.

in case you missed them here’s a sampling:

You have heard that it was said, “An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.” But I say to you, Do not resist one who is evil. But if any one strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also; and if any one would sue you and take your coat, let him have your cloak as well; and if any one forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles.

Then they came up and laid hands upon Jesus and seized him. And behold, one of those who were with Jesus stretched out his hand, and drew his sword, and struck the slave of the high priest, and cut off his ear. Then Jesus said to him, “Put your sword back into its place; for all who take the sword will perish by the sword.”

Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God; for it is written, “Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.” No, “if your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him drink; for by doing so you will heap burning coals upon his head.”

 

[Steven_Merten]

Hello Tlaloc,

Christ’s sword is a spiritually deadly weapon. Slaying someone with Christ’s sword, the sword of His mouth to hold sins bound in heaven, is infinitly deadlier than a physical kill which takes a couple decades off someone’s physical life span.

Through out Old Testament, stoning someone is described as cutting someone off from the body of the Church. To this day the Jews have terms for cutting someone off from the body of the Jewish Church by putting them to death physically or spiritually. KARET is the Jewish term for cutting someone off from the Jewish Church spiritually. Jesus tells His Church that if Her hand, foot or eye is her undoing She is to cut it off and throw it into Gehenna. Jesus commands Apostolic Successors that they are not to let the whole body of the Church go to hell for the sake of trying to save a limb of the body of the Church

Jesus swears to the Apostles that anyone they hold bound to their sins on earth, He will hold that person bound to his sin in heaven. Can a person go to heaven if Jesus has used the breath of His lips to proclaim their sin held bound? On Judgement day, if Jesus proclaims a man bound to his sin in heaven, due to His sworn oath to Apostolic Successors that He will do so if they ask, the man is killed spiritually for all eternity. When Church leaders call upon Jesus to hold sins bound and Jesus upholds His sworn oath, the man is spiritually cut off from the spiritual life of the body of the Church and such a limb of the Church is cast into hell.

Why would Jesus give Apostolic Successors access to a weapon which is infinitely deadlier than the combine killing force of all the physical weapons on earth? To protect the Church in the same way nations use physical weapons to protect the body of people in the world.

Please visit Throwing Stones

**NAB MAT 16:13 **
Jesus replied, “Blest are you, Simon son of John! No mere man has revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father. I for my part declare to you, you are ‘Rock,’ and on this rock I will build my church, and the jaws of death shall not prevail against it. I will entrust to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you declare bound on earth shall be bound in heaven; whatever you declare loosed on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

**NAB REV 1:16 **

A sharp, two-edged sword came out of his mouth, and his face shone like the sun at its brightest. When I caught sight of him I fell down at his feet as though dead, he touched me with his right hand and said: “There is nothing to fear. I am the First and the Last and the One who lives. Once I was dead but not I live-- forever and ever. I hold the keys of death and the nether world.”

NAB ISA 11:4

The Rule of Immanuel

He shall strike the ruthless with the rod of his mouth, and with the breath of his lips he shall slay the wicked.​

Peace in Christ,
Steven Merten
www.ILOVEYOUGOD.com

 

[vern_humphrey]

Tlaloc:

Christ’s teachings however seem to indicate no war is “just:”

You have heard that it was said, “An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.” But I say to you, Do not resist one who is evil. But if any one strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also; and if any one would sue you and take your coat, let him have your cloak as well; and if any one forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles.

Judgement is reserved to God.

Christ said, "if any one strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also."

He did NOT say, "if any one rapes and murders your wife, turn to him your daughter also."

 

[Tlaloc]

Steven Merten:

Hello Tlaloc,

Christ’s sword is a spiritually deadly weapon. Slaying someone with Christ’s sword, the sword of His mouth to hold sins bound in heaven, is infinitly deadlier than a physical kill which takes a couple decades off someone’s physical life span.

If you want to argue that Christ allows for violence on the spiritual realm I can buy that. My question specifically relates to the physical realm.

Why would Jesus give Apostolic Successors access to a weapon which is infinitely deadlier than the combine killing force of all the physical weapons on earth? To protect the Church in the same way nations use physical weapons to protect the body of people in the world.

“Deadlier” is not a very accurate term here. Certainly Christ makes many statements about the various bad things that will happen to those who lead evil lives. I don’t dispute that at all. But To equate that with allowing people to act violently toward one other seems odd and unprecedented.

 

[walter.gonzalez]

I will not fight in any war.

 

[Tlaloc]

vern humphrey:

Christ said, "if any one strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also."

He did NOT say, "if any one rapes and murders your wife, turn to him your daughter also."

Did he say “If anyone rapes your daughter kill him?”

There are all manner of things we can assure each other Christ DIDN’T say. Why not focus on what he did say? He did indicate repeatedly that Christians are not to take up the sword, to strike back, or to seek revenge. Have you found anywhere he specifically says to hurt others or kill them?

 

[Exporter]

Tlaloc

I am Christian and am Pro War. I do not have to explain it to you.

Look in the Catholic Catechism 2312, 2328, 2309, 2314.

Did you ever think why we have Chaplins?

 

[Tlaloc]

walter.gonzalez:

I will not fight in any war.

Is that because you believe your faith precludes it or out of another reason? If it is out of your faith are you Christian? Catholic?

 

[Tlaloc]

Tlaloc

I am Christian and am Pro War. I do not have to explain it to you.

Look in the Catholic Catechism 2312, 2328, 2309, 2314.

Yes I’ve acknowledged the unique role that Catholics have in delegating authority to the Pope. I’m looking for something more universal though and hence I’m relying solely on the Bible.

Did you ever think why we have Chaplins?

Having Chaplains doesn’t prove that it’s right. It only proves that some think it’s okay. If they can’t back up that belief I have to question whether they are doing the right thing.

 

[Prometheum_x]

Tlaloc,

An important factor in my position is the distinction I am making between the actions of an individual acting with the authority of an individual and the actions of a group.

As an individual, I am given no authority to kill anyone, no matter how much I may think they deserve it. Those things which Jesus spoke about these matters were, in my opinion, addressed to the individual living out their personal life. They were not addressed to the governmental authorities, for, as the passage in Romans indicates, the governmental authorities have different zone of authority and responsibility. As such, I could act with the authority proper to the government only if such authority was delegated to me by the government, making me an agent of the government.

That is why I do not see an inconsistency between a Christian being called to non-violence on a personal level yet also being a soldier, even killing another person while acting in that role. But if I was a soldier, the moment that I cease acting with the authority of the government and begin seeking my own personal vengeance or retribution on another, I am instantly in the wrong.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Tlaloc:

Did he say “If anyone rapes your daughter kill him?”

There are all manner of things we can assure each other Christ DIDN’T say. Why not focus on what he did say? He did indicate repeatedly that Christians are not to take up the sword, to strike back, or to seek revenge. Have you found anywhere he specifically says to hurt others or kill them?

First of all, Christ did not say Christians are not to take up the sword – there are passages where he specifically says they should have a sword.

Secondly, as Catholics, we must recognize that we have duties. Sometimes it becomes our duty to protect and defend the innocent – even to the point of using deadly force.

Third, the right to self-defense is inherent in the right to life.

Fourth, we are faced with an enemy who hopes that if he kills enough Americans, we will collapse internally. Those who give him encouragement in this activity are the ones who bear the guilt of continued combat.