Christian and Pro-war?

[Trelow]

Tlaloc:

I’m not sure if this was directed to me or not. But if it was I’d posit that if Christianity indeed forbids violence at the personal level that automatically precludes violence at any larger scale by simple logic. If you cannot hurt the enemy soldier and neither can any of the other members of your squad then obviously the whole squad is precluded from harming the soldier. And so on up to any size of military force you want to discuss.

But Christianity does not forbid violence at the personal level.

 

[Tlaloc]

mlchance:

By the way, I can’t help but notice the irony of someone concerned with pacificism choosing for a screen name a pre-Aztec deity that was honored by drowning children in sacrifice to him.



– Mark L. Chance.

Tlaloc wouldn’t strictly be pre-aztec. He did predate the Aztecs but was also around at the same time as them and actively worshipped by them.

That having been said I’m not a pacifist, but I’m also not christian so I don’t see a logical inconsistency.

 

[mlchance]

Tlaloc:

Tlaloc wouldn’t strictly be pre-aztec. He did predate the Aztecs but was also around at the same time as them and actively worshipped by them.

Admittedly. Poor word choice on my part. Mea culpa.

Tlaloc:

That having been said I’m not a pacifist, but I’m also not christian so I don’t see a logical inconsistency.

I’m not a pacifist, and I am Christian, and I don’t see any logical inconsistency either.



– Mark L. Chance.

 

[Tlaloc]

mlchance:

I’m not a pacifist, and I am Christian, and I don’t see any logical inconsistency either.

So I’ve gathered. I think we hit a fundamental disconnect in how we read the passages so I’m not sure either of us will be able to make any headway with the other however. I do appreciate your attempt, though.

 

[Scott_Waddell]

Actually there is a passage where Jesus gives an example of a general counting up his forces for battle and deciding if he has enough forces to overcome the enemy. One can claim that it’s just an example, but the fact remains that Jesus’ would not lie or use the imagery if he believed it was intrinsicly wrong, even in the context of a parable or example.

Scott

 

[Tlaloc]

Scott Waddell:

Actually there is a passage where Jesus gives an example of a general counting up his forces for battle and deciding if he has enough forces to overcome the enemy. One can claim that it’s just an example, but the fact remains that Jesus’ would not lie or use the imagery if he believed it was intrinsicly wrong, even in the context of a parable or example.

Scott

Interesting, can you tell me where it is so I can read it?

 

[JMJ_Pinoy]

“Consider, for example, the war in Iraq. Although Pope John Paul II pleaded for an alternative to the use of military force to meet the threat posed by Saddam Hussein, he did not bind the conscience of Catholics to agree with his judgment on the matter, nor did he say that it would be morally wrong for Catholic soldiers to participate in the war. In line with the teaching of the catechism on “just war,” he recognized that a final judgment of prudence as to the necessity of military force rests with statesmen, not with ecclesiastical leaders. Catholics may, in good conscience, support the use of force in Iraq or oppose it.”

-Archbishop John J. Myers

 

[Prometheum_x]

Two relevant passages:

Luke 3:12-14 -

*Tax collectors also came [to John the Baptist] to be baptized. "Teacher, they asked, “what should we do?” “Don’t collect any more than you are required to,” he told them. Then some soldiers asked him, “And what should we do?” He replied, “Don’t extort money and don’t accuse people falsely – be content with your pay.” (NIV)
*
John the Baptist is regarded by Jesus as a prophet and when the soldiers ask what they should do (in the context of repentance - see 3:8) he does not tell them to cease being soldiers.

Romans 13:1-5 -

*Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. For he God’s servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, **for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God’s servant, an agent of wrath to to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. **Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience. (NIV)

 

[mlchance]

Tlaloc:

So I’ve gathered. I think we hit a fundamental disconnect in how we read the passages so I’m not sure either of us will be able to make any headway with the other however. I do appreciate your attempt, though.

I don’t need to make any progress, because I’m not wrong.

Seriously, though, the fundamental disconnect is that you’re making the same mistake many people do, whether they are Christian or not. You’re trying to interpret Scripture on your own, divorced from its larger context both within itself as well as within authentic Christian tradition.

Scripture is not self-interpreting, and Scripture itself warns against the perils of private interpretation.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[Scott_Waddell]

The passage about the king in battle is where Christ talks about the cost of discipleship:

Luke 14: 31-32:

Or what king, when he sets out to meet another king in battle, will not first sit down and consider whether he is strong enough with ten thousand men to encounter the one coming against him with twenty thousand? Or else, while the other is still far away, he sends a delegation and asks for terms of peace.

If he can’t win the battle, he sues for peace. It reasonably suggests that if he has enough to win, he fights. I suppose one could make the case that the king’s weaker enemy will sue for peace, but that would be “peace through strength” and legitimate at least the threat of military force and render the Christian vs. all war dichotomy false.

Scott

 

[Scott_Waddell]

Scott Waddell:

The passage about the king in battle is where Christ talks about the cost of discipleship:

Luke 14: 31-32:

If he can’t win the battle, he sues for peace. It completely suggests that if he has enough to win, he fights. Now I suppose one could make a case that the king’s weaker opponent will sue for peace, but that would be a case of “peace through strength” which would legitimate at least the threat of military force.

Scott

 

[Tlaloc]

Prometheum_x:

Two relevant passages:

Luke 3:12-14 -

Tax collectors also came [to John the Baptist] to be baptized. "Teacher, they asked, “what should we do?” “Don’t collect any more than you are required to,” he told them. Then some soldiers asked him, “And what should we do?” He replied, “Don’t extort money and don’t accuse people falsely – be content with your pay.” (NIV)

John the Baptist is regarded by Jesus as a prophet and when the soldiers ask what they should do (in the context of repentance - see 3:8) he does not tell them to cease being soldiers.

Interesting however the problem as I see it is that the soldiers of the time were not military in the modern sense. They were a combination of soldier and police and sometimes other civil support jobs as well. Notice that John’s admonitions are more geared toward a soldiers role as a police officer. I’d suggest that the “Don’t kill others” part of it was sufficiently obvious to not need stating. I might be wrong there but even if I am it’s not a direct statement condoning violence, only an inference that we assume allows for it. If thats the best support then I’d think you’d want to err on the side of caution.

Romans 13:1-5 -

*Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. For he God’s servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, **for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God’s servant, an agent of wrath to to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. ***Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience. (NIV)

Surely this passage refers to heavenly authority and the sword said to be born by angels and not men. You can’t tell me you actually believe that every government on earth has been chosen by God?

 

[Tlaloc]

Scott Waddell:

The passage about the king in battle is where Christ talks about the cost of discipleship:

Luke 14: 31-32:

If he can’t win the battle, he sues for peace. It reasonably suggests that if he has enough to win, he fights. I suppose one could make the case that the king’s weaker enemy will sue for peace, but that would be “peace through strength” and legitimate at least the threat of military force and render the Christian vs. all war dichotomy false.

Scott

Hmm, but again its simply a parable told to others in a format that they would understand. Taking that as an endorsement by christ of war in general seems thin. For example I may use a metaphor about cannibals without meaning that I agree with cannibalism in general.

 

[fix]

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…

I think there would only be contradictions for those who do not follow the authority instituted by Christ. That is His vicar on earth. Christ founded a Church, not a book. If we only had a book and no unifying way to interpret it how can we practice Christianity? Everyone would be doing what they thought was right, but contradicting each other.

 

[Brendan]

Tlaloc:

Uh…Christ, see the above quote from matthew.

OK, how about Numbers 33 when Jesus (Lord) told the Israelites to attack Caanan and take their land?

Was God confused?

Or how about Ecc 3?
There is a time for everything,
and a season for every activity under heaven:

2 a time to be born and a time to die,

a time to plant and a time to uproot,

3 **a time to kill ** and a time to heal,

a time to tear down and a time to build,

4 a time to weep and a time to laugh,

a time to mourn and a time to dance,

5 a time to scatter stones and a time to gather them,

a time to embrace and a time to refrain,

6 a time to search and a time to give up,

a time to keep and a time to throw away,

7 a time to tear and a time to mend,

a time to be silent and a time to speak,

8 a time to love and a time to hate,

**a time for war ** and a time for peace.

How is it that a pacifist is telling that there is a time to kill and a time for war?

 

[Brendan]

Tlaloc:

Surely this passage refers to heavenly authority and the sword said to be born by angels and not men. You can’t tell me you actually believe that every government on earth has been chosen by God?

Actually, St. Thomas Aquinas disagrees with you.

He used this very passage to demonstrate how Christians may bear arms and use them to enforce law.

St. Paul clearly shows, and Aquinas agrees, that all power has it’s roots in God, even temporal power. It carries with it the right as the responsibility to wield justice. When a government does not, it falls to other governments to wield justice on it’s behalf.

BTW, St. Thomas also demonstrated that it is not immoral to kill in defense, and Pope John Paul agrees.

newadvent.org/summa/306407.htm

Moreover, “legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for someone responsible for another’s life, the common good of the family or of the State”.[44] Unfortunately it happens that the need to render the aggressor incapable of causing harm sometimes involves taking his life. In this case, the fatal outcome is attributable to the aggressor whose action brought it about, even though he may not be morally responsible because of a lack of the use of reason

Pope John Paul - *Evangelium Vitae * – Part II

 

[Tlaloc]

fix:

I think there would only be contradictions for those who do not follow the authority instituted by Christ. That is His vicar on earth. Christ founded a Church, not a book. If we only had a book and no unifying way to interpret it how can we practice Christianity? Everyone would be doing what they thought was right, but contradicting each other.

Well I stated this a little bit higher but if your argument is that the Pope accepts a Just War Doctrine I understand how that will satisfy you (due to the nature of the Catholic church) but it won’t work for other Christian faiths, and I’m hoping to find something a bit more universal.

To put it another way: can you be pro-war and also follow Christ’s teachings assuming no other additional source of equal authority (Pope for Catholics, Book of Mormon for LDS, etc)?

 

[Tlaloc]

Brendan:

OK, how about Numbers 33 when Jesus (Lord) told the Israelites to attack Caanan and take their land?

Was God confused?

Or how about Ecc 3?

How is it that a pacifist is telling that there is a time to kill and a time for war?

Both books you mention are from the old testament, not the new. Hence invalidated by the new covenant through Christ.

 

[Adam_Costanzo]

That’s patently false. Christ said that he was “the new way” and hence that the previous covenant of the old testament was now void.

Matthew 5:17-18 "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish, but to fulfill. 18 For truely I tell you, until heaven and earth pass away, not one letter, not one stroke of a letter, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished."

---

QED.

 

[Tlaloc]

Brendan:

Actually, St. Thomas Aquinas disagrees with you.

He used this very passage to demonstrate how Christians may bear arms and use them to enforce law.

St. Paul clearly shows, and Aquinas agrees, that all power has it’s roots in God, even temporal power. It carries with it the right as the responsibility to wield justice. When a government does not, it falls to other governments to wield justice on it’s behalf.

Surely you don’t believe that the power of Nazi Germany was God granted? Its undeniable that they wielded temporal power. Given the log history of the abuse of power how can you reconcile it to be a gift from God? Honestly I find such a position far more unbelievable than the simple question that started this thread.

BTW, St. Thomas also demonstrated that it is not immoral to kill in defense, and Pope John Paul agrees.

newadvent.org/summa/306407.htm

My interest though is specifically with the Bible testament and not with the interpretations later because those interpretations are not universally accepted. Reading that passage I find they have gone against Christ’s word because I do not give the Pope or Saints equal weight with Christ, but obviously Catholicism does see the Pope as Christ’s representative on earth.