Christian and Pro-war?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Tlaloc
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
theTaxCollector:
Tlaloc -
  1. 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.
Certainly but we have to assume the most important message made the final edit, wouldn’t you agree?
  1. 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.
there certainly have been Christian sects that felt that way.
  • “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.
If we had a theocracy, yes. You could say that you couldn’t be a Christian and be part of the penal system.
  • “Go and sin no more”. You cannot be Christian if you commit sins.
Obviously thats an ideal to try and live up to. Consider the difference between trying to sin no more and simply not caring. Now compare that to trying to be a pacifist and simply not caring. Same situation. Christ sets forth an ideal. Christians have the struggle of trying to meet it.
  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.
false because according to Christianity the important question is the afterlife. The non-violent christian goes to heaven. the murderer goes to hell. God values the soul of the non-violent Christian higher.
  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?
Of course not. I’m pointing out the words of the person you consider to be the son of God. If they conflict with your actions you might consider rethinking either your actions or your faith because they are at odds. I can’t make anyone live according to the ideals they espouse I can only demonstrate when people don’t.
 
40.png
Tlaloc:
in case you missed them here’s a sampling:

… 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.



Beloved, never avenge yourselves, …
**This passage using your literal reasoning would disallow any defense, even the non-violent defense of the law. So it would follow to be a lawyer or to even defend your self in a lawsuit (no mater how frivolous) would be against Christ’s teachings. In the Acts of the Apostles the Apostle Paul defends himself at trial and, claiming his Roman citizenship, appeals for a hearing before Caesar. Since the New Testament relies on Paul heavily for Christian instruction, and Paul is considered an excellent Christian by a vast majority of New Testament believers, and Paul by his own actions did not follow the literal interpretation as it is being debated in this thread, the literal pacifist interpretation must be in error.

We are so quick to pat ourselves of the back for being against war in all cases but when it comes to dealing with our own neighbors and family we ready to hold a grudge or gossip. We tally the spiteful comments of the mother-in law and hold them against her to justify our own curt behavior. We will look for opportunities to embarrass our co-workers so the are diminished in the eyes of our superiors.

Jesus is saying that we may not avenge ourselves. That means we are not to exact punishment on others even if we think it is justified. We are not to inflict revenge upon another for an insult. For example your neighbor’s dog keeps doing his business in your yard so to enact revenge on your neighbor you dump the dog poop on his front step.

To defend is to shield from attack or injury, to protect. Jesus does not say that we can not defend ourselves. It is ok to put up a fence that keeps the dog out of your yard.

It is the reasons motivating our actions that Jesus is addressing and our understanding of the effect of those actions on others.

While dumping the dog poop on the neighbor’s front stoop does make you feel better and makes the point clear to your neighbor, it will tick him off. It may just cause him to report your dog to the dogcatcher that one time it breaks its chain and leaves your yard. You could say that he who lives by the poop, dies by the poop.

**
 
Numbers2222 said:
**This passage using your literal reasoning would disallow any defense, even the non-violent defense of the law. So it would follow to be a lawyer or to even defend your self in a lawsuit (no mater how frivolous) would be against Christ’s teachings. **

Well Christ does say right there “and if any one would sue you and take your coat, let him have your cloak as well;” I didn’t write it. I’m just pointing it out.

**

In the Acts of the Apostles the Apostle Paul defends himself at trial and, claiming his Roman citizenship, appeals for a hearing before Caesar. Since the New Testament relies on Paul heavily for Christian instruction, and Paul is considered an excellent Christian by a vast majority of New Testament believers, and Paul by his own actions did not follow the literal interpretation as it is being debated in this thread, the literal pacifist interpretation must be in error.

Well one of the apostles also drew his sword when the soldiers came for Christ. They were Christ’s followers but they weren’t him. They made mistakes and strayed from time to time.

**

**We are so quick to pat ourselves of the back for being against war in all cases but when it comes to dealing with our own neighbors and family we ready to hold a grudge or gossip. We tally the spiteful comments of the mother-in law and hold them against her to justify our own curt behavior. We will look for opportunities to embarrass our co-workers so the are diminished in the eyes of our superiors. **

I’d agree those are also non-Christian behaviors.

**

**Jesus is saying that we may not avenge ourselves. That means we are not to exact punishment on others even if we think it is justified. We are not to inflict revenge upon another for an insult. **

What is war if not avenging ourselves upon an enemy? Exacting punishment?

**

**For example your neighbor’s dog keeps doing his business in your yard so to enact revenge on your neighbor you dump the dog poop on his front step. **

To defend is to shield from attack or injury, to protect. Jesus does not say that we can not defend ourselves. It is ok to put up a fence that keeps the dog out of your yard.

Similarly you may seek peaceful resolutions to conflicts. The fence is not an assalut upon the neighbor. A war is.

Building a fence and slaying someone are pretty different wouldn’t you say?
 
40.png
Tlaloc:
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?
By quoting someone who never faced a dangerous wild animal? Where’s his proof that swords were used for hunting?

Pure sophistry.

By the way, aren’t you the guy who in another thread is telling us how reasonable the pro-abortion postion is, and that we ought not to regard the unborn child as a person until it can live out of the womb?http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon13.gif
 
vern humphrey:
Explain how you would fight a wolf, bear, lion, or wild boar with a sword.
Never having to hunt any of the above I wouldn’t know. However faced with the option of travelling through an area with wolves, bears, and lions either with or without a sword, I’d take the sword.
As for “proof” – let’s see YOUR proof that the swords were for fighting animals.http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon10.gif
I don’t have proof thats what they were for just as you have no proof they were for harming people. But the former fits with the rest of Christ’s teachings and the latter doesn’t. Hence the former is far more likely.

Furthermore before you go slaughter someone, or support others slaughtering them wouldn’t you like to be sure God wasn’t getting miffed? Given any amount of uncertainty as whether or not you would be guilty of murder wouldn’t you want to err on the side of caution?
 
vern humphrey:
By quoting someone who never faced a dangerous wild animal? Where’s his proof that swords were used for hunting?

Pure sophistry.
Where in the entirety of the Bible does Christ advise violence, commit violence, or condone violence? He doesn’t. Until you can change that the sword issue is moot.
By the way, aren’t you the guy who in another thread is telling us how reasonable the pro-abortion postion is, and that we ought not to regard the unborn child as a person until it can live out of the womb?http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon13.gif
Speaking of sophistry, aren’t you that guy who was losing the debate and so started trying to cloud the issue? Yeah, I knew it was you.
 
40.png
Tlaloc:
Never having to hunt any of the above I wouldn’t know. However faced with the option of travelling through an area with wolves, bears, and lions either with or without a sword, I’d take the sword.
But that isn’t the option, is it?

No one is actually travelling though such an area, are they? They’re in Jerusalem, and Christ is telling them what to get for the future.

Why would He do something as stupid as tell them to get a sworld, if He knew they would face threats for which a sword is completely inappropriate?
40.png
Tlaloc:
I don’t have proof thats what they were for just as you have no proof they were for harming people. But the former fits with the rest of Christ’s teachings and the latter doesn’t. Hence the former is far more likely.
Actually, it’s far more likely that he was warning them of times to come when they would have to defend themselves from attackers.
40.png
Tlaloc:
Furthermore before you go slaughter someone, or support others slaughtering them wouldn’t you like to be sure God wasn’t getting miffed?.
Like he gets miffed over the abortions you justify?
40.png
Tlaloc:
Given any amount of uncertainty as whether or not you would be guilty of murder wouldn’t you want to err on the side of caution?
Given any amount of uncertainty as whether or not you would be guilty of murder by justifying abortion wouldn’t you want to err on the side of caution?
 
vern humphrey:
But that isn’t the option, is it?

No one is actually travelling though such an area, are they? They’re in Jerusalem, and Christ is telling them what to get for the future.

Why would He do something as stupid as tell them to get a sworld, if He knew they would face threats for which a sword is completely inappropriate?
So you keep saying yet provide nothing to back it up. I provided one source that said swords were used for hunting at that place and time. feel free to find some that say the opposite.
Actually, it’s far more likely that he was warning them of times to come when they would have to defend themselves from attackers.
Right cause after telling them not to resist an attacker he then tells them to get geared up. What definition of likely are you using?
Like he gets miffed over the abortions you justify?
If you want to discuss that topic do it in that thread.
 
40.png
Tlaloc:
Well Christ does say right there “and if any one would sue you and take your coat, let him have your cloak as well;” I didn’t write it. I’m just pointing it out.

No, actually you are interpreting what Christ meant by what he said but you refuse to consider the context and setting in which he was speaking. You refuse to consider or hear about the beliefs of the people at that time. You consider the Old Testament closed. I am not disputing what Christ said but your flawed interpretation.
40.png
Tlaloc:
Well one of the apostles also drew his sword when the soldiers came for Christ. They were Christ’s followers but they weren’t him. They made mistakes and strayed from time to time.

Who said it was a mistake? Who said Paul was straying? No Christian in the New Testament does. As for the apostle with the sword why did he have it in the first place? If Jesus were such a pacifist he would have instructed this apostle to lose the sword a lot earlier in the ministry. I have offered proof, using only the New Testament (at your request) that your interpretation is wrong.
40.png
Tlaloc:
What is war if not avenging ourselves upon an enemy? Exacting punishment?
War is an action. The motivations of the combatants and causes of the war vary.

Some wars are entered into to exact punishment, some wars are entered into to protect and defend.

If your question was phrased using another action would it still make sense?

What is debate if not avenging ourselves upon the enemy? Exacting punishment?
40.png
Tlaloc:
Similarly you may seek peaceful resolutions to conflicts. The fence is not an assalut upon the neighbor. A war is.

Building a fence and slaying someone are pretty different wouldn’t you say?
Fences and armed guards protect boarders. The usurper is the one crossing over into an area where they know they do not belong. The consequence of their trespass is clear. Killing someone as a last resort whom is crossing your threshold to do you or others mortal harm is far different than hunting down and slaying someone because they have offended you.
 
40.png
Tlaloc:
Where in the entirety of the Bible does Christ advise violence, commit violence, or condone violence? He doesn’t. Until you can change that the sword issue is moot.
John 2:14,15
In the temple he found those who were selling oxen and sheep and pigeons, and the money-changers at their business. And making a whip of cords, he drove them all, with the sheep and oxen, out of the temple; and he poured out the coins of the money-changers and overturned their tables.
 
40.png
Tlaloc:
God values the soul of the non-violent Christian higher.
This is an absurd statement. You have no proof for such a concept.

I was talking about a person’s human life; you are trying to change the discussion. Where does Jesus say that any human life is valued more than another’s?
 
40.png
Tlaloc:
Certainly but we have to assume the most important message made the final edit, wouldn’t you agree?
Jesus didn’t say this. Why do we have to assume it? Again, what proof do you offer for this statement?
 
40.png
Tlaloc:
Of course not. I’m pointing out the words of the person you consider to be the son of God. If they conflict with your actions you might consider rethinking either your actions or your faith because they are at odds. I can’t make anyone live according to the ideals they espouse I can only demonstrate when people don’t.
You claim not be a Christian, but are expert enough to accuse others of not living up to Christian ideals? How very nice of you! :rolleyes:
 
40.png
theTaxCollector:
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.
No comment on the history of the Bible? Certainly, you know that the New Testament is a document of the Catholic Church, but that it did not compile the books into the collection we know until around 400AD. And of course, that the Catholic monks meticulously created versions of the Bible by hand throughout the centuries. And that the members of the Catholic Church continually came together to condemn the heresies of early Christian “sects” that believed things that were ‘anathema’ to true Christian doctrine. Etc., etc.

You are simply wrong to base your comments solely on one or two quotes that you read in the Bible. Unless you are God or His messenger, you ought to have a 2000 year history of discussion, reflection, and debate on the meaning of the words and quotes, before “demonstrating that Christians are not following the teachings of Christ.”

Otherwise, you are simply a noisy gong.
 
40.png
Tlaloc:
How exactly do nations fight if the people don’t?
False naievete does not suit you, Tlaloc. You know perfectly well that otherwise peaceful folk will take up arms as members of the body politic when they wouldn’t as individuals in parallel circumstances.
40.png
Tlaloc:
Again the swords may have been used against wild beasts. He never explicitly says to use them on people, does he?
And he never explicitly says not to, either. The swords carried by common folk at the time of Christ were called gladii (singular gladius); short, flat blades with a non-hilted grip. They were also carried by Roman soldiers and gladiators for personal combat. Defense against wild animals called for using spears; this kept things like sharp fangs (which were curved and tended to keep their purchase on your leg) away from tender flesh.

Since you’re so honked off about swords, what about the sword that issues from Christ’s mouth in Revelations? Think He was going to make shish kebab with it?
40.png
Tlaloc:
Do you think the Christians fed to lions for refusing to renounce their faith thought it was the expedient thing to do?
No; neither do I think that they did not struggle with the lions when they were attacked. There’s a difference between pragmatism and expedience; suggesting that they are synonymous tells me you need a thesaurus, and suggesting that I do what is expedient instead of what is pragmatic tells me you’ve made up your mind about this and are therefore attempting to parade your intellect before an audience that is neither appreciative nor impressed.
40.png
Tlaloc:
If you want a religion that practical you’re in the wrong one. Christianity asks for an incredibly high standard of self sacrifice.
Au contraire; Christianity is eminently practical in that its adherents (properly formed) understand that their sacrifices benefit themselves as well as others.

Look, Tlaloc, no sane, sensible person wants to spend his/her life fighting. You ask any Green Beret or SEAL how they want to die, they’ll tell you in bed, and of old age. They’re willing to put themselves in harm’s way - to fight and kill - because they take responsibility for the defense of the body politic. Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori, and all that.

Christ never said it was okay to break the law just to fill your belly, either, but He and His disciples were accused of breaking the Sabbath law for eating grain off the ear. He understood; sometimes you do what you must.

Do you sleep soundly at night? I’m sure you do, trusting in God to protect you from all enemies, natural, supernatural and infernal. Do you think maybe God has the US Marine Corps in His arsenal? Rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do us harm.

You don’t have to be of the world, but you do have to exist in it.
 
40.png
Tlaloc:
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.
In my experience, the roots of many disagreements are the premises they are based on, not the logic used in reaching the conclusion. Unfortunately, we usualy spend most of our time arguing about the conclusions and only rarely address the premises. I am sure there are many other premises of mine that you don’t agree with; if you did, you’d be Catholic just like me! 😉
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.
So far I have restricted my argument to that, so your question is certainly a good next question in our effort to discover the truth of this matter.

I am not a soldier, nor do I have any desire to be one, for a variety of reasons. If there is a legitimate basis for me as a Christian to be supportive of any war, what would that be? While I have not reasoned this out very far in my own mind nor read the opinions of others on this specific question, I can think of at least one basis for such support. Again, I exclude as a legitimate basis for such support any personal desire for vengeance or retribution. However, I think that a Christian can support a war, not for its own sake, but in support of the government exercising its God-given responsibility to promote justice in the world. War is seen then as an unfortunately necessary means towards the realization of that justice, and as such should be supported (It is a great tragedy that most wars have not been conducted in that way). This is why in Catholic just-war doctrine, war is to be engaged in only as a last resort, after all other methods have failed.
 
40.png
Tlaloc:
So you keep saying yet provide nothing to back it up. I provided one source that said swords were used for hunting at that place and time. feel free to find some that say the opposite…
The proposition is so rediculous, and so out of line with both ancient practices and modern experience that it isn’t worth citing.
40.png
Tlaloc:
Right cause after telling them not to resist an attacker he then tells them to get geared up. What definition of likely are you using?
He tells them they cannot win, and that He is to be sacrificed by His own will. But nevertheless, He also tells them to be prepared for self defense – after all, He knew they were carrying swords in the garden, didn’t He?

Now, in this threat you have introduced the Marcionite Heresy, as if we Catholics should accept it.
40.png
Tlaloc:
If you want to discuss that topic do it in that thread.
I don’t have to go to another thread to point out on this thread that we are dealing with a heretic – and warn that your position on the humanity of the unborn is further reason to realize you are not the Catholic you claim to be.
 
vern humphrey:
I don’t have to go to another thread to point out on this thread that we are dealing with a heretic – and warn that your position on the humanity of the unborn is further reason to realize you are not the Catholic you claim to be.
Hello Vern humphrey,

In another thread, Tlaloc describes himself as an athiest with an anarchist phylosophy. Please do not be implicating he has anything to do with being Catholic. Anarchists are out to destroy religions and civil structures.

Anarchist: one who rebels against any authority, established order, or ruling power 2: one who believes in, advocates, or promotes anarchism or anarchy: esp: one who uses violent means to overthrow the established order. Quoted from Webster.
**Tlaloc describes himself on a different thread: **

“I’m not christian. In fact I have positions that are completely the opposite of the holy see in most cases.”

"I don’t ascribe to any organized religion
I have an anarchist philosophy
I am pro-choice
I’m divorced, almost 30, and have two kids.

If the thread generates no interest that’s okay, but when I see threads like “how is an atheist consciousness formed” I suspect there’s a niche that this may fill."

Peace in Christ,
Steven Merten
www.ILOVEYOUGOD.com
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top