Christians And War
Marine0I
Join Date: 2002-11-14 Member: 8639Members, Constellation
Join Date: 2002-11-14 Member: 8639Members, Constellation
in Discussions
<div class="IPBDescription">Should they really be fighting?</div> Okay, few small rules with this one. First of all - dont come in here and tell me ur an atheist or an agnostic and all Christians are stupid. Thats NOT the topic and I DONT need to hear that in this thread. Second, it may help to have some small knowledge of the Bible and Christian theology. Dont worry, this isnt going to get too in depth.
So, to begin.
Christians and war? Are Christians actually allowed to fight? Should they even be supporting war? I've had a think about it and (although I was a staunch supporter of the Iraq war) at the end of the day Christians SHOULDNT be fighting. Nor do I believe should they be supporting wars.
Now, Christians throughout the ages have definately NOT been shy of fighting, but can they justify that with their scriptures? First off - the Old Testament. This is full of stories of God telling the Jews to go and fight. Attack this nation, destroy this city and so on. He even orders massacres at one stage (kill the children, rip open the pregnant women). Many Christians use the old testament to justify their fighting in wars.
But the New Testament, this is where it gets curvy. Christians are call (so I believe) to interperate the OT threw the NT. And there is NOTHING at all in the NT (as far as I can see) that tells Christians to fight. Its all turn the other cheek. So should these (to use the American example) Biblebelt whites be supporting the Iraq war? Should they be sending their children to the army?
I think its hypocracy. Christians are NOT called to fight, ever. discuss.
So, to begin.
Christians and war? Are Christians actually allowed to fight? Should they even be supporting war? I've had a think about it and (although I was a staunch supporter of the Iraq war) at the end of the day Christians SHOULDNT be fighting. Nor do I believe should they be supporting wars.
Now, Christians throughout the ages have definately NOT been shy of fighting, but can they justify that with their scriptures? First off - the Old Testament. This is full of stories of God telling the Jews to go and fight. Attack this nation, destroy this city and so on. He even orders massacres at one stage (kill the children, rip open the pregnant women). Many Christians use the old testament to justify their fighting in wars.
But the New Testament, this is where it gets curvy. Christians are call (so I believe) to interperate the OT threw the NT. And there is NOTHING at all in the NT (as far as I can see) that tells Christians to fight. Its all turn the other cheek. So should these (to use the American example) Biblebelt whites be supporting the Iraq war? Should they be sending their children to the army?
I think its hypocracy. Christians are NOT called to fight, ever. discuss.
Comments
In Matt 21:12 Jesus whips moneylenders out of the temple.
In Luke 3:14 he tells the soldiers to be content with their wages, not condemning their profession <i>per se</i>.
In Luke 22:36 Jesus asks his followers to arm themselves for self-defence.
So Jesus did not teach absolute pacifism, although he certainly abstained from physical violence most of the time.
The natural law generally grants states the right to use force in order to protect the interests of their subjects, and Christians are asked to obey the law. However, theologians have inferred restrictions, conditions a war must fulfill in order to be just. The <a href='http://ethics.acusd.edu/Books/Texts/Aquinas/JustWar.html' target='_blank'>theory of Just War</a> was first drafted by Thomas Aquinas and later enhanced by the Catholic Church (<a href='http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/alabaster/A644672' target='_blank'>summary</a>). This is the foundation most Christians use when judging wars.
Of course, in concrete cases they face the same dilemmas atheists struggle with. Was war <i>really</i> the last resort in Saddam's case? Perhaps the inspections would have worked. Are uranium-depleted bullets and clusterbombs proportional means to fight a war? They're very dangerous for civilians.
In the Pope's <a href='http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/2654109.stm' target='_blank'>opinion</a> the Iraq invasion was unjust. While he isn't infallible in that respect, I believe he has a strong argument.
I personally am opposed to violence, but it anything from a small bar fight to mass war and genocide, no matter what religion you're from i doubt that (Sorry, this is a presumption....) any religious text outwardly states that violence is OK or promotes it in any way. However, i could be wrong.
Basically, as humans we are "allowed" to fight. It's in our nature, but it more stands to whether the individual has the will to not fight and "Turn the other cheek".
Anyway, that's enough of my nonsense ramblings, hope some point of it was valid at all. <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
In Luke 3:14 he tells the soldiers to be content with their wages, not condemning their profession <i>per se</i>.
In Luke 22:36 Jesus asks his followers to arm themselves for self-defence.
So Jesus did not teach absolute pacifism, although he certainly abstained from physical violence most of the time.
The natural law generally grants states the right to use force in order to protect the interests of their subjects, and Christians are asked to obey the law. However, theologians have inferred restrictions, conditions a war must fulfill in order to be just. The <a href='http://ethics.acusd.edu/Books/Texts/Aquinas/JustWar.html' target='_blank'>theory of Just War</a> was first drafted by Thomas Aquinas and later enhanced by the Catholic Church (<a href='http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/alabaster/A644672' target='_blank'>summary</a>). This is the foundation most Christians use when judging wars.
Of course, in concrete cases they face the same dilemmas atheists struggle with. Was war <i>really</i> the last resort in Saddam's case? Perhaps the inspections would have worked. Are uranium-depleted bullets and clusterbombs proportional means to fight a war? They're very dangerous for civilians.
In the Pope's <a href='http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/2654109.stm' target='_blank'>opinion</a> the Iraq invasion was unjust. While he isn't infallible in that respect, I believe he has a strong argument. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Using the NIV here:
<i>Matthew 21: 12-12 - Jesus entered the temple area and drove out all who were buying and selling there. He overturned the tables of the money changers and the benches of those selling doves. "It is written," he said to them, " 'My house will be called a house of prayer,' but you are making it a 'den of robbers.' " </i>
- I was a little caught off guard by the verb "whips"; I somehow have the mental picture of Jesus pistol whipping those money lenders... Meh, the world will never run out of tables and benches to overturn.
<i>Luke 3: 14 - 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." </i>
- They didn't really ask "should we cease our careers as soldiers?", so I guess Jesus didn't bother to tell them whether he agreed with their profession or not. You'll notice in the verse before it some tax collectors asked Him what they should do and he didn't tell them to quit their jobs either. Pretty mcuh every nation needs soldiers.
<i>Luke 22: 35 - 38 - Then Jesus asked them, "When I sent you without purse, bag or sandals, did you lack anything?"
"Nothing," they answered. He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. It is written: 'And he was numbered with the transgressors' ; and I tell you that this must be fulfilled in me. Yes, what is written about me is reaching its fulfillment." The disciples said, "See, Lord, here are two swords." "That is enough," he replied. </i>
I really don't get this verse very well... maybe someone else can explain the symbolism involved in this passage, cause when you read verses 49-51, a sword was used against a servant of a high priest and Jesus was arrested, but Jesus told them to stop the sword swinging and he fixed the ear of the servant that had been lopped off.
Back on topic though... this verse provides the Christian stance on war:
<i>Ephesians 6: 12 - For our struggle is <b>not against flesh and blood</b>, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms. </i>
When it comes to worldly affairs, unless it directly interferes with faith, there shouldn't be any problem in serving as a soldier for your country. But involving Christian matters, our welfare is a spirtual one, never a physical one. Even if the government were to physically attack Christians, Christians aren't called to fight back with guns. We fight with prayer and propaganda <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->
<!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->
The whip appears in John's account of the scene, 2:15.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->They didn't really ask "should we cease our careers as soldiers?", so I guess Jesus didn't bother to tell them whether he agreed with their profession or not. You'll notice in the verse before it some tax collectors asked Him what they should do and he didn't tell them to quit their jobs either. Pretty mcuh every nation needs soldiers.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If every nation needs soldiers, and everyone should follow God's law, then being a soldier cannot be inherently evil, else God would force the soldiers to sin. Therefore soldiers (much like tax collectors, by the way) can serve a just purpose.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I really don't get this verse very well... maybe someone else can explain the symbolism involved in this passage, cause when you read verses 49-51, a sword was used against a servant of a high priest and Jesus was arrested, but Jesus told them to stop the sword swinging and he fixed the ear of the servant that had been lopped off.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Some people do take these swords metaphorically, and apply Jesus' "That is enough" not to the swords but the topic as a whole, indicating his disciples didn't understand that the armaments were meant spiritually, so Jesus is disappointed when they bring actual swords. IMHO this reading is not sufficiently backed up by exegesis, though.
<i>John 2:15 - So he made a whip out of cords, and drove all from the temple area, both sheep and cattle; he scattered the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables. </i>
I <i>think</i> he only whipped the animals out
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->If every nation needs soldiers, and everyone should follow God's law, then being a soldier cannot be inherently evil, else God would force the soldiers to sin. Therefore soldiers (much like tax collectors, by the way) can serve a just purpose.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Just my personal opinion, but when it comes to secular matters, I don't really make a distinction of whether things are good or evil. As long as they're not trying to abuse their role, which is basically what Jesus warned them against, they're okay. So yes, a military serves a purpose - I don't necessarily see it as a good or evil purpose in most cases, just neutral in general.
<i>John 2:15 - So he made a whip out of cords, and drove all from the temple area, both sheep and cattle; he scattered the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables. </i>
I <i>think</i> he only whipped the animals out <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Sure, but nethertheless, if someone comes into a room with a bullwhip and starts swining it around overthrowing tables, you're getting the hell out of there.
Remember, no matter how holy or just or righteous one side may feel in a war, it all comes down to killing. Everyone bleeds red. Everyone screams the same way when wounded. Everyone loses something in a war. No cause should be great enough to inflict the pain and agony of war on any people.
Predictable rebuttal time! What about fighting against the Axis in WWII?
Its a sad day you see me on the same side as Ryo, but I agree. No Christian should support a physical war against evil. If you are in the army and are told to fight by your leaders, than thats fine. But you shouldnt be supporting it.
As far as should Christans wage wars? Of course not, and there isn't one relegion that preaches war or violence that I can think of, but unfortunatly there are more than enough beleivers willing to kill to uphold its idea.
Getting involved in cases where neither side is the clear aggressor... that I'm much more inclined to say we should stay the heck out of. (Cf. Palestine-Israel.) And actually launching a conquest or raid (Cf. Crusades) is an obvious no-no.
[edit: did you already read the summary of the Just War doctrine that Twex posted? It's short. <a href='http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/alabaster/A644672' target='_blank'>Clickeh.</a>]
Most wars caused by religion? More people have died in wars this century than in all the centuries previous. So which religion started WWII remembering the allies didnt know about the Holocaust until AFTER the war. Which religion started ww1? Sure you could say religious tensions causing the assasination of the archduke, but that had britain and the us against other Christian countries. Which religion started the Boer war? The hundred years war? The Vietnam war? The Korean war? The panama debacle? The Falklands war?
I think the arguement that religion starts wars is defunct. Religion is merely the excuse and the justifier. Take religion away (ie Soviet) and there goes the motivation to fight? Really? Afghanistan war anyone? Crushing poland?
There are greedy and evil men in this world who want power. If they can use religion to justify their search for power, they will. If they cant, they'll do it anyway.
Humans are evil, dont try and transfer that evil to religion
EDIT for spelling
Hitler adopted the <a href='http://history1900s.about.com/library/holocaust/aa120699a.htm' target='_blank'>swastika</a> because it's an ancient symbol of power. It predates Christianity, in fact.
(Anyone who watched the X-Files knows this.)
Couldn't have said it better. I swear, Christians have ONE little Crusade and nobody can talk about anything else for the next 1000 years... <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
Hitler adopted the <a href='http://history1900s.about.com/library/holocaust/aa120699a.htm' target='_blank'>swastika</a> because it's an ancient symbol of power. It predates Christianity, in fact.
(Anyone who watched the X-Files knows this.) <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Swashtika is sort of a perverted version of a Tibetian sign for peace ironically, and to them peace was power. But like I said there are theories that he considered the Aryan people God's people and all others heathen that deserved eradication. Seems like relegious reasons to me.
Stalin killed millions of Russians because of relegious persecution, the Japanase found relegious honor in dying in battle.
Stalin killed millions of Russians because of relegious persecution, the Japanase found relegious honor in dying in battle. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I thought Hitler's deal was natural selection. He simply considered the Aryans evolutionarily superior, and hence fit to rule the world.
As for Stalin, I thought the religious persecution was atheistic in nature. (Religion has no place in a true Communist state, so those who won't convert or leave must die.)
So who here now wants to say "if we didnt have religion we wouldnt have wars". That imho is a serious misunderstanding of human nature. The Soviets didnt have religion, and they did some incredibly evil and horrendous things.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
War was inflicted upon the German people by Adolf Hitler and the Nazi party. War was then inflicted upon the Western Allies and Russia by Germany. There was nothing just in the reasons behind Hitler's war or the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour. Hence I stand by my statement that no cause can be reason enough to inflict war upon any people. If war is inflicted upon your people, you fight back, but neither side is just, holy or right.
Isn't that exactly what the Roman Christians did?
Isn't that exactly what the Roman Christians did? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think they weren't in as good of a position to fight back in a productive fashion. There's a difference between being morally justified in fighting back, and being physically able to fight back.
The argument is that the US was morally justified in fighting against Hitler because they were trying to undo the effects of Hitler's unjust war against other European countries.
Wait, what are you talking about now? I thought you were talking about the Christians in Rome during WWII. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->