Christian and Pro-war?

[manualman]

Your basic problem is that you understand the New testament to INVALIDATE the Old. That is NOT the case in any version of Christianity, protestant or catholic. (Only a few fringe sects like the Quakers believe in absolute pacifism.)

Christ came to FULFILL the old testament covenant, not abolish it. The references are valid.

So, how does the ‘turn the other cheek’ reference apply? God does not contradict Himself. Other places in scripture portray justified violence. Therefore, it must be looked at more closely to see what it really means.

One potential meaning already discussed is vengeance. But I agree that isn’t quite adequate. In my opinion, this was a teaching on forgiveness and evangelization. Christ did not want His infant Church to be a revolutionary armed group like the Jewish Zealots of the period. But this teaching does not amount to the blanket “lie down and be slaughtered” command that you seem to want it to be.

Instead, it foreshadows the amazing witness that marytrdom often plays in the conversion of unbelievers in the early church.

By the way, difficult and SEEMINGLY contradictory passages like this (plus the fact that most people in history were illiterate) are why Christ did NOT just hand the apostles a bible at the Ascension and say “This is all you need, see ya.” Instead, he instituted His Church to instruct, correct and clarify.

 

[Tlaloc]

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.

“For whatever was written previously was written for our instruction, that by endurance and by the encouragement of the scriptures we might have hope.”
Romans 15:4

Perhaps “void” was a poor choice of words, still its made clear that the rules of the old covenant do not apply. The new covenant for instance is not just between God and Jews but all men.

 

[Tlaloc]

manualman:

Your basic problem is that you understand the New testament to INVALIDATE the Old. That is NOT the case in any version of Christianity, protestant or catholic. (Only a few fringe sects like the Quakers believe in absolute pacifism.)

Christ came to FULFILL the old testament covenant, not abolish it. The references are valid.

Invalidate was a poor choice of terms. Yes he fulfilled the old testament, and thus ended it. It was meant to be preserved as an example but no longer as God’s Law. Hence relying on the laws from the old testament (especially when in direct violation of Christ’s statements) is wrong.

So, how does the ‘turn the other cheek’ reference apply? God does not contradict Himself. Other places in scripture portray justified violence. Therefore, it must be looked at more closely to see what it really means.

One potential meaning already discussed is vengeance. But I agree that isn’t quite adequate. In my opinion, this was a teaching on forgiveness and evangelization. Christ did not want His infant Church to be a revolutionary armed group like the Jewish Zealots of the period. But this teaching does not amount to the blanket “lie down and be slaughtered” command that you seem to want it to be.

Wasn’t that precisely Christ’s action though? The actions that were meant to teach us how to be just and right? When the soldiers come for him he tells his apostles to put up there swords and he goes as a pacifist to his death. By word and deed both Christ was a pacifist.

Instead, it foreshadows the amazing witness that marytrdom often plays in the conversion of unbelievers in the early church.

By the way, difficult and SEEMINGLY contradictory passages like this (plus the fact that most people in history were illiterate) are why Christ did NOT just hand the apostles a bible at the Ascension and say “This is all you need, see ya.” Instead, he instituted His Church to instruct, correct and clarify.

Well one could also say the contradictory passages come about precisely because the bible was put together so long after his death. Notice the Ten commandments are pretty straightforward…if they’d be transcribed hundreds of years after moses’ death there might be a whole lot more of them

 

[Adam_Costanzo]

Tlaloc:

Well one could also say the contradictory passages come about precisely because the bible was put together so long after his death. Notice the Ten commandments are pretty straightforward…if they’d be transcribed hundreds of years after moses’ death there might be a whole lot more of them

The Bible was written by God, not man. Therefore, it does not suffer from the errors consistent with our failing human brains.

---

Matthew, Mark, and Luke all say that Jesus cleansed the temple at the end of His ministry, but John says it happened beforehand. What this basically means is that the “when” isn’t important, because the point is that Jesus is the Lord. So some contradictions are meant to dissolve the possibility of getting hung up on frivolous technicalities that take our eyes away from God.

 

[Brendan]

Tlaloc:

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

WRONG!

The ceremonial Law was invaidated. The Moral Law was not. That is 100% Catholic Doctrine.

We are no longer under bound by Levitical ceremony (unclean vs. clean), but what was moral in the Old is moral in the New.

In addition, we can look at the example of St. Joan of Arc.

Is it your premise that the Church erred in stating that the voices guiding her to war were of Heavenly origin?

 

[dax]

If Jesus was a pacifist and totally against violence then why did he:

1). Why did he heal the Centurions son? Why didn’t he tell the Centurion that his profession was “evil” and that he should get another job?

1. Of course everybody knows the story of chasing the money changers out of the Temple with a weapon.
2. When Jesus was struck by the Temple guard while being question—why didn’t he turn the other cheek? Instead he stood up for himself and admonished the guard that struck him with a very poignant remark.

Just a couple of points to consider. There are more instances where Jesus counsel’s military people about their duties and responsibilities.

YBIC
Dax

 

[Tlaloc]

The Bible was written by God, not man. Therefore, it does not suffer from the errors consistent with our failing human brains.

---

What language did God write it in? And are the translations also free of errors consistent with our failing human brains?

 

[Tlaloc]

Brendan:

WRONG!

The ceremonial Law was invaidated. The Moral Law was not. That is 100% Catholic Doctrine.

We are no longer under bound by Levitical ceremony (unclean vs. clean), but what was moral in the Old is moral in the New.

In addition, we can look at the example of St. Joan of Arc.

Is it your premise that the Church erred in stating that the voices guiding her to war were of Heavenly origin?

That wasn’t my premise at least in part because I wasn’t aware of that (Joan of Arc). It is interesting though. My premise is that, while later sources may say otherwise, in the Bible Christ is clearly a pacifist and exhorts his followers to be as well.

 

[Tlaloc]

dax:

If Jesus was a pacifist and totally against violence then why did he:

1). Why did he heal the Centurions son? Why didn’t he tell the Centurion that his profession was “evil” and that he should get another job?

You’re asking why didn’t Jesus refuse to heal a man? Um…forgiveness?

1. Of course everybody knows the story of chasing the money changers out of the Temple with a weapon.

It says he shouted and turned over their tables but I don’t recall him having actually attacked any of them, or killed any. Pacifism means you draw the line at violence, it doesn’t have to mean Passive-ism.

1. When Jesus was struck by the Temple guard while being question—why didn’t he turn the other cheek? Instead he stood up for himself and admonished the guard that struck him with a very poignant remark.

Responding to a blow with words is turning the other cheek.

 

[Adam_Costanzo]

Tlaloc:

What language did God write it in? And are the translations also free of errors consistent with our failing human brains?

It doesn’t have to be 100%. And if there’s a discrepancy we always have the original texts to go by. But verbatim isn’t paramount in this situation.

---

Since translating the Bible was just as important as writing it in the first place, I can only assume that God had a hand in translating it as well.

 

[Tlaloc]

It doesn’t have to be 100%. And if there’s a discrepancy we always have the original texts to go by. But verbatim isn’t paramount in this situation.

---

Since translating the Bible was just as important as writing it in the first place, I can only assume that God had a hand in translating it as well.

Actually we don’t have the original texts to go by, those have all been destroyed. We do have partial copies of the originals which taken together should comprise the original source material.

Nevertheless you’ll find rather large discrepencies in the translations, especially translations from hebrew to english.

“This is the literal translation from the Hebrew text. But in the King James Version it reads: “I am that I am.” The majority of English Bibles translates it this way. But it is a wrong translation. I repeat, the “I am” translation is incorrect. In the note for Exodus 3:14 in the American Standard Version it correctly says the verse is: I will be that I will be.”
becomingone.org/gp/gp1b.htm

"In English versions of the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament), the Hebrew word "m’khashepah" is often translated as “witch.” The word actually means a female sorcerer who uses spoken curses to harm other people.
Similarly, in the English translations of the Christian Scriptures (New Testament) the Greek word “pharmakia" is often translated as “witch.” It actually means a person who poisons other humans through the administration of toxic potions.”
religioustolerance.org/wic_conf2.htm

“In the King James Bible we read in Luke 24:51: “And it came to pass, while he blessed them, he was parted from them, and carried up into heaven.”
The New American Standard Version (NASV) says: “And it came about that while He was blessing them, He parted from them.” The phrase “carried up into heaven” is missing in the NASV. Where He went it does not say. In other words we do not read that Christ has ascended – that all-important event which ended his earthly stay!”
eaec.org/bibleversions/english_bible.htm

And so on. Given that the mistranslations of “witch” were at the root of the Salem trials I’d call it pretty significant.

 

[Scott_Waddell]

Tlaloc:

You’re asking why didn’t Jesus refuse to heal a man? Um…forgiveness?

I notice you did not address the latter part of the question. There is a passage where Jesus heals and tells a woman to sin no more. He heals a centurion and sends him on his way with no admonishment to sin no more by getting out of a profession that, as the pacisfists would have it, is intrinsicly wrong. Also, you did not address my contention that even in the context of a parable our Lord would not lie or use for the good guy someone engaged in evil.

 

[Trelow]

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

 

[Prometheum_x]

Tlaloc:

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.

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

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?

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

Vs. 6-7 of this passage makes it clear that it is referring to earthly authorities: “*This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants, who give their full time to governing. Give everyone what you owe him: if you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then reveneue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor.” (NIV)

*This verse must also be coupled with “*Judge for yourselves whether it is right in God’s sight to obey you rather than God.” (Acts 4:19b NIV, *referring to an order given by the Sanhedrin.) as well as the passage (I cannot find it at the moment) where Jesus tells us that much will be required of the one to whom much is given – God will judge those with the most responsibility the harshest. A government may be established and sustained by God, but if it chooses to do evil, he will judge it. And, though a government may have received some measure of authority from God, it has no legitimate authority to command us to do something contrary to the law of God.

 

[Brendan]

Tlaloc:

That wasn’t my premise at least in part because I wasn’t aware of that (Joan of Arc). It is interesting though. My premise is that, while later sources may say otherwise, in the Bible Christ is clearly a pacifist and exhorts his followers to be as well.

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?

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

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

Or have those been ‘invalidated’ as well.

The Christ of the Bible is the God of the Old Testament. Every Moral Command issued by God applies to all people, in all places, over all time. That is called Natural Law and is required Catholic Doctrine.

The Single Divine Will of God commanded War. It therefore cannot be unjust, in fact, because God commands it, it is a tool for Bringing Justice.

 

[Brendan]

There is also Luke 3:

12Tax collectors also came to be baptized. “Teacher,” they asked, “what should we do?”
13“Don’t collect any more than you are required to,” he told
them.
14Then 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.”

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?

 

[fix]

This discussion reminds me that we can’t be “bible only” Christians. We have the one Church founded by Christ and the infallible interpreter of faith and morals. Sola scriptura leads to moral relativism. We each become our own authority.

 

[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.

The turn the other cheek philosophy is a spiritual principal for the church. The church is not to be an armed military organization (though this took some time to learn!). Individuals are not to seek revenge. Individuals are not to consider their own pride, their own rights, their own freedom to be of the highest value in the world. Instead, we ARE to turn the other cheek when wronged, sometimes even accepting martyrdom when it may serve as witness to those committing the wrong, even bringing about conversion.

But this does NOT mean that no physical defense of self, family, nation or others is ever justified. Thankfully, Christ left us His church to make that clear.

 

[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.

Now, where the Iraq war fits into the continuum of just to unjust wars is another issue. Reasonable people can see it either way. But to argue that Jesus was a pacifist because of opposition to this particular war is deluded and naive.

 

[Tlaloc]

Scott Waddell:

I notice you did not address the latter part of the question. There is a passage where Jesus heals and tells a woman to sin no more. He heals a centurion and sends him on his way with no admonishment to sin no more by getting out of a profession that, as the pacisfists would have it, is intrinsicly wrong.

Actually I did. I pointed out that centurions were not strictly soldiers but also police and sometimes served other social service roles.

Also, you did not address my contention that even in the context of a parable our Lord would not lie or use for the good guy someone engaged in evil.

Again I did address it. I said that I may use an example involving cannibals without giving blanket acceptance of cannibalism. I have to assume Jesus was at least as capable as I am in the use of symbolism.

And once again you are relying on passages where the best you can say is “Jesus didn’t specifically outlaw violence here.” Thats a completely different statement than “Jesus said its okay to use violence.”

if A implies B
Not A does not automatically imply not B
This is elementary logic.