Christian and Pro-war?

[manualman]

Tlaloc,

Thanks for repeating your three quotes.

The third deals with vengeance. I agree revenge is NOT jsutifiable cause for war. Jesus would condemn such practice.

The second, as I mentioned earlier dealt with the specific occurrence at hand: Jesus arrest and subsequent passion. Another translation uses the words LIVE by the sword and DIE by the sword. Jesus is saying to the apostle to discern, not to just draw the sword immediately upon perceiving a threat. Such an approach to war is NOT allowable. Had the apostle succeeded in fighting off those who came to arrest Jesus, He would not have died on the cross, violating the will of God.

Thus, we ARE left with just the first quote. And I’ve said my peace on that one.

What this all boils down to is a nice illustration of the absurdity of the Sola Scriptura model of christianity. A few hundred pages just cannot provide a clear teaching on every aspect of every moral issue that will ever face humanity. Honest men can and will interpret things differently. That’s why law requires judges and why scriptures require a teaching Authority.

I don’t think you’l find what you are looking for. The bible was never intended to be what you are expecting of it.

 

[Tlaloc]

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.

Thats the best argument I’ve seen yet. I don’t agree because I don’t accept that God grants authority. Rather Authority is granted by men who have assumed power and often excel at doing the very things the Bible explicitly tells us not to do. That means we have a fundamental difference on the premise your argument is founded on. I agree that if we take your premise as true the rest of the argument seems rational.

However it does raise another question for me. Would you say then that as a private citizen, and a Christian, it is acceptable for you to be pro-war? Not to actually go to war but to support it? See it would seem that your argument deals only with those actually taking orders from above, not those on the sidelines cheering.

 

[Exporter]

TLALOK,

Your profile indicates you are Protestant, no religion listed.
**You wrote:"**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."

“Relying solely on THE BIBLE”. So you are a Bible-Only person. End of discussion!

 

[Tlaloc]

vern humphrey:

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.

please quote them, so far no one else has.

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.

I’d posit that if your “duty” is in direct violation of Christ’s teachings you probably have some serious thinking to do.

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

Aren’t rights God given?

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.

Well I specifically said we were talking about the general case and not this specific war. But since you want to go there you should realize that your argument here boils down to “I don’t have to follow Christ if it means I’ll lose!” Is that really what you want to say?

 

[Tlaloc]

manualman:

Tlaloc,

Thanks for repeating your three quotes.

The third deals with vengeance. I agree revenge is NOT jsutifiable cause for war. Jesus would condemn such practice.

It doesn’t say revenge, it says comfort your enemies. It says leave it to God to punish them. Thats entirely consistent with what I’ve said here. Do you have a single pro-violence quote from the Bible?

The second, as I mentioned earlier dealt with the specific occurrence at hand: Jesus arrest and subsequent passion. Another translation uses the words LIVE by the sword and DIE by the sword. Jesus is saying to the apostle to discern, not to just draw the sword immediately upon perceiving a threat. Such an approach to war is NOT allowable. Had the apostle succeeded in fighting off those who came to arrest Jesus, He would not have died on the cross, violating the will of God.

You read it that way. If it was only meant as a single admonishment in a certain instance he would have said only “put up your sword.” Adding in the “those who live by the sword die by the sword” is making it a larger lesson, a life lesson. Have you found a single pro-violence quote yet?

I don’t think you’l find what you are looking for. The bible was never intended to be what you are expecting of it.

It seems to be doing what I expect of it just fine. Especially since not one pro-violence quote has come forward yet. Or do you have one?

 

[Tlaloc]

TLALOK,

Your profile indicates you are Protestant, no religion listed.
**You wrote:"**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."

“Relying solely on THE BIBLE”. So you are a Bible-Only person. End of discussion!

Thats a mistake then, I’m not protestant. Yes I am looking for a Bible based discussion because I am trying to resolve the issue on a level that works across faiths and not just for Catholicism. I’ve been completely open about that. I’ve also acknowledged where Catholics can choose to ignore the Bible in favor of Catechisms and hence we’ll be at an impasse.

I’m not sure what about all this you have a problem with but as the saying goes “don’t let the door hit you…”

Oh and you mispelled the name.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Tlaloc:

please quote them, so far no one else has.

Try Luke 22,36. “He said to them, 'But now one who has a money bag should take it, and likewise a sack. And one who does not have a sword should sell his cloak and buy one.”

Tlaloc:

I’d posit that if your “duty” is in direct violation of Christ’s teachings you probably have some serious thinking to do…

I was about to say the same thing to you. Do you see it as your duty to support terrorism, and to give aid and comfort to those who seek to destroy civilization?

Tlaloc:

Aren’t rights God given? …

Indeed they are – and you therefore have no grounds to demand that we give up ours.

Tlaloc:

Well I specifically said we were talking about the general case and not this specific war. But since you want to go there you should realize that your argument here boils down to “I don’t have to follow Christ if it means I’ll lose!” Is that really what you want to say?

You should realize that your argument boils down to “I don’t have to follow Christ if I don’t want to.”

We have a duty to defend the helpless, and to defend our own lives.

 

[Tlaloc]

vern humphrey:

Try Luke 22,36. “He said to them, 'But now one who has a money bag should take it, and likewise a sack. And one who does not have a sword should sell his cloak and buy one.”

There is a contention though that those swords are meant to protect against wild animals and not to be used on other humans.

I was about to say the same thing to you. Do you see it as your duty to support terrorism, and to give aid and comfort to those who seek to destroy civilization?

Nice of you to be so insulting. I consider it my duty to point out hypocrisy. Now shall we go back to being civil or do you want to get really ugly?

Indeed they are – and you therefore have no grounds to demand that we give up ours.

So they are God given rights but when God specifically tells you you don’t have the right you ignore Him?

You should realize that your argument boils down to “I don’t have to follow Christ if I don’t want to.”

We have a duty to defend the helpless, and to defend our own lives.

List one place Christ said to defend others with violence. I’ve given you three places he said the opposite.

 

[rcwhiteh]

Tlaloc’s argument assumes that violent conflict between nations is equivalent to violent conflict between persons; this is not so. Nations (as political entities) do not exist in the same moral realm as individuals; if they did, the US Government would be guilty of theft for taking your taxes out of your paycheck against your will.

Jesus told His followers to “turn the other cheek.” I think this had to be because they were going to be preaching and had to set an example of forbearance and forgiveness. I don’t read anywhere in the Scriptures that He forbade defending yourself against attack. The whole thing about selling one’s cloak and buying a sword indicates that He knew the world was a no-kidding dangerous place, and that His followers would have to be ready to deal with it.

The willingness to struggle to survive is built into all of God’s creatures; certainly I can’t agree that God would want you throw yourself on a mugger’s knife because you’re not supposed to fight for your own life.

For my part, I made up my mind a long time ago - about the time I enlisted - that I had to be ready to kill if I was ordered to do so or I had no business wearing the uniform. Outside of my military service, I decided that I was ultimately responsible for my own defense and that of my family; to that end, I became a proficient rifle and pistol marksman, even earning my Firearms Instructor’s certification and teaching defensive close-quarters combat handgunning. I’ve never had to shoot anyone (came close once or twice), but if I am reasonably certain that my life is threatened, I’ll try to beat my attacker to the draw and put an end to his career of evil.

Am I an evil person? No; perhaps I’m a bit more pragmatic than doctrinal correctness would like, but I think I’m on pretty solid ground. After all, even the 10 Commandments don’t prohibit killing completely; the original Hebrew translates closer to a condemnation of unwarranted homicide. Or do you think God condemned Joshua ben Nun’s military exploits?

Tlaloc, I hate to say this, but I’d have to put your interpretation of Scripture in the same category as Peacemonger’s “peace at any cost” gutless pacifism; it’s unrealistic, unworkable and ultimately wasteful.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Tlaloc:

There is a contention though that those swords are meant to protect against wild animals and not to be used on other humans…

There are also those who contend the Earth is flat, that man will never fly (it’s all a government plot) and that this world was populated by space aliens.http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon10.gif

Tlaloc:

Nice of you to be so insulting. I consider it my duty to point out hypocrisy. Now shall we go back to being civil or do you want to get really ugly?.

Then why condemn those who defend us against terrorists?

Do you not understand that actions have consequences, and that one consequence of condemning those who defend us is to encourage our enemies?

Tlaloc:

So they are God given rights but when God specifically tells you you don’t have the right you ignore Him?

What is it I’m ignoring? God commanded the Apostles to buy swords. In the Old Testament, God often commander the people to fight – and even to conquer.

God clearly commands me, as a husband and father, to protect my wife and children.

Tlaloc:

List one place Christ said to defend others with violence. I’ve given you three places he said the opposite.

I’ve already quoted Luke (your hilarious comment that the swords were to defend against “wild animals” not withstanding.) Now it’s up to you to show where I am commanded to stand by and see the innocent slaughtered.

 

[Tlaloc]

rcwhiteh:

Tlaloc’s argument assumes that violent conflict between nations is equivalent to violent conflict between persons; this is not so. Nations (as political entities) do not exist in the same moral realm as individuals; if they did, the US Government would be guilty of theft for taking your taxes out of your paycheck against your will.

How exactly do nations fight if the people don’t?

Jesus told His followers to “turn the other cheek.” I think this had to be because they were going to be preaching and had to set an example of forbearance and forgiveness. I don’t read anywhere in the Scriptures that He forbade defending yourself against attack.

scroll up to the three quotes I listed. Notice the one about always comforting your enemies?

The whole thing about selling one’s cloak and buying a sword indicates that He knew the world was a no-kidding dangerous place, and that His followers would have to be ready to deal with it.

Again the swords may have been used against wild beasts. He never explicitly says to use them on people, does he?

Tlaloc, I hate to say this, but I’d have to put your interpretation of Scripture in the same category as Peacemonger’s “peace at any cost” gutless pacifism; it’s unrealistic, unworkable and ultimately wasteful.

Christianity was often not particularly pragmatic. I suppose you’d like to contend that Jesus didn’t really tell people to give to the poor or any of the other ways in which being devoutly Christian is inconvenient? Do you think the Christians fed to lions for refusing to renounce their faith thought it was the expedient thing to do? If you want a religion that practical you’re in the wrong one. Christianity asks for an incredibly high standard of self sacrifice.

 

[Tlaloc]

vern humphrey:

There are also those who contend the Earth is flat, that man will never fly (it’s all a government plot) and that this world was populated by space aliens.http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon10.gif

True but having the swords to defend against beasts is consistent with Jesus’ other statements while assuming they were for slaughtering his fellow man isn’t. Again not one instance of Jesus directly saying violence is okay. Only assumptions and inuendo read into passages.

Then why condemn those who defend us against terrorists?

Where did I condemn anyone? I just ask people to be true to the faiths they proclaim to follow.

Do you not understand that actions have consequences, and that one consequence of condemning those who defend us is to encourage our enemies?

One of the consequences of claiming a Christian faith is having to try and live up to Christian Ideals.

What is it I’m ignoring? God commanded the Apostles to buy swords. In the Old Testament, God often commander the people to fight – and even to conquer.

the old testament is a closed book as we’ve been over several times in this thread. It no longer applies. Buy swords? Yes but you’ve yet to show where those were ever used or intended to be used on people.
I’ve shown at least three places where Jesus specifically forbids violence.

I’ve already quoted Luke (your hilarious comment that the swords were to defend against “wild animals” not withstanding.) Now it’s up to you to show where I am commanded to stand by and see the innocent slaughtered.

Hilarious? Are you familiar with wolves? I already showed where Christ forbid violence. Please tell me why you ignore it.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Tlaloc:

Again the swords may have been used against wild beasts. He never explicitly says to use them on people, does he?

They **may **have been to whittle toothpicks with for the Last Supper. http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon10.gif

But they weren’t. Of all ancient hand weapons, swords are specifically for killing men – not beasts.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Tlaloc:

True but having the swords to defend against beasts is consistent with Jesus’ other statements while assuming they were for slaughtering his fellow man isn’t. Again not one instance of Jesus directly saying violence is okay. Only assumptions and inuendo read into passages…

No, it’s not consistent – it’s pure sophistry.

Tlaloc:

Where did I condemn anyone? I just ask people to be true to the faiths they proclaim to follow. …

One cannot be true to the faith and abandon the innocent to the tender mercies of unjust attackers.

Tlaloc:

One of the consequences of claiming a Christian faith is having to try and live up to Christian Ideals. …

See below:

Tlaloc:

the old testament is a closed book as we’ve been over several times in this thread. It no longer applies…

Are you saying that the Catholic Church teaches that the Old Testament is NOT scripture, and that it no longer applies? Is that how you live up to Christian ideals?

Tlaloc:

Buy swords? Yes but you’ve yet to show where those were ever used or intended to be used on people…

Of course not. Swords weren’t designed to be used on people. They were designed to whittle toothpicks.http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon10.gif

Tlaloc:

I’ve shown at least three places where Jesus specifically forbids violence.

And I’ve shown where He commands his followers to arm themselves. The Catholic Church does NOT forbid us to defend ourselves.

Tlaloc:

Hilarious? Are you familiar with wolves? .

Quite familiar. And no one chooses swords to fight wolves – nor can you show that wolves (or Bug-eyed Monsters from the planet Zolgarsh) were threats in Jerusalem at that time.

Tlaloc:

I already showed where Christ forbid violence. Please tell me why you ignore it.

I don’t ignore Christ – I ignore you. Your sophistry and spurious arguments simply aren’t worth taking seriously.

 

[walter.gonzalez]

Tlaloc:

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?

Because I am a follower of Jesus Christ.

 

[walter.gonzalez]

Tlaloc:

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?

Because I am a follower of Jesus Christ.

 

[Tlaloc]

vern humphrey:

They **may **have been to whittle toothpicks with for the Last Supper. http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon10.gif

But they weren’t. Of all ancient hand weapons, swords are specifically for killing men – not beasts.

I’d need to see you back that up with proof.

 

[Tlaloc]

vern humphrey:

One cannot be true to the faith and abandon the innocent to the tender mercies of unjust attackers.

Abandon? No, but neither can one follow the faith and attack their enemies. Comfort the victims.

Are you saying that the Catholic Church teaches that the Old Testament is NOT scripture, and that it no longer applies? Is that how you live up to Christian ideals?

The old testament details the old covenant which was only between God and the Jews and was finished by Christ bringing the New Covenant. Hence the Old Testament is not to be considered Law.

And I’ve shown where He commands his followers to arm themselves. The Catholic Church does NOT forbid us to defend ourselves.

The Catholic Church may not but Christ did. If you want to rely on a catechism thats fine for you but irrelevent to the argument at hand which has to do with the Bible.

Quite familiar. And no one chooses swords to fight wolves – nor can you show that wolves (or Bug-eyed Monsters from the planet Zolgarsh) were threats in Jerusalem at that time.

Not only wolves but lions and bears:
wolftimbers.org/Jerusalem%20Post.html

here’s at least one source that finds hunting with swords to be less than ridiculous:
“Israel abounded with many large animals for hunting, such as lions, bears, panthers. wolves, jackals, deer and gazelles. Smaller game thrived as well including such birds as partridges and quail. Hunting was primarily for food but also for sport or to protect their herds from predators. Hunters used a variety of weapons including the bow and arrow, lances, swords, slings and clubs. Sometimes traps and snares were used and pits and nets.”
latter-rain.com/ltrain/animals.htm

I don’t ignore Christ – I ignore you. Your sophistry and spurious arguments simply aren’t worth taking seriously.

So you don’t have any direct quotes allowing violence, you don’t accept the direct quotes denouncing violence, you are wrong about the wildlife of the area and I’m the one indulging in sophistry?

 

[Tlaloc]

walter.gonzalez:

Because I am a follower of Jesus Christ.

I respect that a great deal.

 

[theTaxCollector]

Tlaloc:

I’m curious if anyone on here who is both Christian and Pro-war (any war, not specifically afghanistan/Iraq) can explain to me how they resolve the contradictions of those positions…

Tlaloc -

I have read through this thread and have the following comments:

1. Jesus did not write a book… He established a Church, and designated leaders. The Church (called Catholic by around 100AD) had decided to record accounts of Jesus’ life in writing. Some of the leaders (read “Bishops”) that Jesus established wrote instructional letters. These writings are what the Catholic Church designated to be considered the “New Testament” and finalized this book in the 4th and 5th centuries. **Note: The Catholic Church came before the New Testament. **There are some teachings that were handed down through the leadership (Church Tradition) that are not in the Bible, but were believed by all Christians until the 16th century AD, when the “reformers” began to make things up.
2. I find your arguments and comments fairly incoherent, and when attacked, you counter solely with Jesus said ‘this’ and Jesus said ‘that’. You forget that John states that if everything Jesus did and said was written down, it would fill volumes and volumes. Therefore, it cannot be assumed that all knowledge of Jesus is found in the written pages of the New Testament.
3. Your original question is framed in such a way as to narrowly define Jesus as a one dimensional philospher. According to your logic the following arguments can also be made:

• “Sell all you have and give to the poor”. You cannot be Christian if you have possessions.
• “You must forgive seven times seventy times”. You cannot be Christian and have prisons because you are required to forgive murderers and thieves and rapists.
• “Go and sin no more”. You cannot be Christian if you commit sins.

1. You can never rectify an argument that self-defense (whether on the personal, societal, or inter-national) is against Jesus’ teaching. The argument will naturally progress and conclude as follows:

• Murderer tries to kill Christian.
• Christian allows it to happen.
• God approves (at least using your logic).
• Murderer’s human life is more valuable than Christian’s.
• Therefore, human life is really not valuable to God.

Do you think this is what Jesus intended?

1. If you expect us Catholics to go beyond the authority Jesus established (namely the Church) to look for answers, should we turn to you? Are you a God-sent messenger of Jesus’ truth?