Christian Warfare

[Redemptionsong]

As a follower of Jesus Christ, I am of the belief that I should not fight, or resort to physical violence. At points in the past, as a younger soul, I tried to justify defensive warfare, but as an older person I have become convinced of the rightness of non-violence.

The passage of scripture that plays loudly in my ears is Ephesians 6:10-12. It says,'Finally, my brethren, be strong in the Lord, and in the power of his might. Put on the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil. For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places'.

Some people regard non-violence as a form of cowardice, but my belief is that it is better to sacrifice one's life non-violently, than to sacrifice it attempting to take the lives of others. Jesus set an example of non-violence.

I'm not so naive as to think that there isn't great pain involved in the non-violent response to evil. It raises many difficult questions, but I believe the long term consequences of non-violence benefits all mankind.

What do you think?

 

[Harel13]

Some people regard non-violence as a form of cowardice, but my belief is that it is better to sacrifice one's life non-violently, than to sacrifice it attempting to take the lives of others. Jesus set an example of non-violence

Oh, I don't know about that. Jesus could be violent when he wanted to.

 

[ChristineM]

If only other Christian throughout history had thought the same there would not gave been so many wars of religion

 

[Brian2]

As a follower of Jesus Christ, I am of the belief that I should not fight, or resort to physical violence. At points in the past, as a younger soul, I tried to justify defensive warfare, but as an older person I have become convinced of the rightness of non-violence.

The passage of scripture that plays loudly in my ears is Ephesians 6:10-12. It says,'Finally, my brethren, be strong in the Lord, and in the power of his might. Put on the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil. For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places'.

Some people regard non-violence as a form of cowardice, but my belief is that it is better to sacrifice one's life non-violently, than to sacrifice it attempting to take the lives of others. Jesus set an example of non-violence.

I'm not so naive as to think that there isn't great pain involved in the non-violent response to evil. It raises many difficult questions, but I believe the long term consequences of non-violence benefits all mankind.

What do you think?

I certainly flies in the face of the ways of the world but it seems to be one of those things where different Christians have different views and I don't want to judge brothers and sisters either way and dislike the stand of some who hold up their particular brand of Christianity and say that they do not fight in wars so they are morally superior to other brands of Christianity.

 

[Brian2]

Oh, I don't know about that. Jesus could be violent when he wanted to.

John 2:13 When it was almost time for the Jewish Passover, Jesus went up to Jerusalem. 14 In the temple courts he found people selling cattle, sheep and doves, and others sitting at tables exchanging money. 15 So he made a whip out of cords, and drove all from the temple courts, both sheep and cattle; he scattered the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables. 16 To those who sold doves he said, “Get these out of here! Stop turning my Father’s house into a market!” 17 His disciples remembered that it is written: “Zeal for your house will consume me.”
18 The Jews then responded to him, “What sign can you show us to prove your authority to do all this?”
19 Jesus answered them, “Destroy this temple, and I will raise it again in three days.”

Matt 21:12Then Jesus entered the temple courts and drove out all who were buying and selling there. He overturned the tables of the money changers and the seats of those selling doves. 13And He declared to them, “It is written: ‘My house will be called a house of prayer.’ But you are making it ‘a den of robbers.’”
14The blind and the lame came to Him at the temple, and He healed them.…

Isa 56:6And the foreigners who join themselves to the LORD to minister to Him, to love the name of the LORD, and to be His servants—all who keep the Sabbath without profaning it and who hold fast to My covenant— 7I will bring them to My holy mountain and make them joyful in My house of prayer. Their burnt offerings and sacrifices will be accepted on My altar, for My house will be called a house of prayer for all the nations.” 8Thus declares the Lord GOD, who gathers the dispersed of Israel: “I will gather to them still others besides those already gathered.”

Psalm 69:7 For I endure scorn for your sake,
and shame covers my face.
8 I am a foreigner to my own family,
a stranger to my own mother’s children;
9 for zeal for your house consumes me,
and the insults of those who insult you fall on me.

 

[pearl]

Some people regard non-violence as a form of cowardice, but my belief is that it is better to sacrifice one's life non-violently, than to sacrifice it attempting to take the lives of others. Jesus set an example of non-violence.

The Mahatma would agree, it worked for him.

 

[Rival]

What about all the wars HaShem commanded in the Tanakh? He's called the Lord of Armies over and over again; he calls himself this. It seems at odds with this kind of pacifism.

 

[Heyo]

I'm not so naive as to think that there isn't great pain involved in the non-violent response to evil. It raises many difficult questions, but I believe the long term consequences of non-violence benefits all mankind.

What do you think?

I don't think so. While non-violence is a high moral goal, sometimes standing up to violence is a "necessary evil" to achieve less violence over all. Sometimes, putting a bully in their place, even if violent, stops them from violence and signals to others that violence is not rewarded.
I see violence as a last resort to stop more violence, not as an absolute taboo.

 

[Redemptionsong]

Oh, I don't know about that. Jesus could be violent when he wanted to.

Not towards people. The incident in the Temple did not involve an attack on the traders, only on their tables and wares.

 

[Redemptionsong]

If only other Christian throughout history had thought the same there would not gave been so many wars of religion

Agreed. IMO, religion, especially when politicised, is based on law and not grace.

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

Oh, I don't know about that. Jesus could be violent when he wanted to.

Like Father, like Son? God is extremely violent. According to the Bible, he has personally killed people, he committed global genocide, and he ordered the Israelites to utterly destroy other nations, killing every man, woman, child, infant, and all their animals (Exodus 17:8–13; 1 Samuel 15:2; Deuteronomy 25:17). He killed a man and his wife for lying to the Apostle Peter.

 

[Harel13]

Not towards people. The incident in the Temple did not involve an attack on the traders, only on their tables and wares.

Sure, okay. I am willing to accept your assumption that someone going on a rampage in a stuffy market filled with people and animals manages to calmly push over the stalls in directions that won't injure anyone and that none of the coins flew into someone's face or knees. And that while all of this calmly destruction of property was happening, nobody managed to stop him and arrest him.

 

[Rival]

Not towards people. The incident in the Temple did not involve an attack on the traders, only on their tables and wares.

How would you like it if you owned a business and someone came in and started violently turning over all your stuff?

 

[Harel13]

Like Father, like Son? God is extremely violent. According to the Bible, he has personally killed people, he committed global genocide, and he ordered the Israelites to utterly destroy other nations, killing every man, woman, child, infant, and all their animals (Exodus 17:8–13; 1 Samuel 15:2; Deuteronomy 25:17). He killed a man and his wife for lying to the Apostle Peter.

I'm Jewish, pleased to meet you. Jesus is not a literal "son of god" in my book, literally as well as figuratively. And I'm not here arguing for non-violence.

 

[amorphous_constellation]

The religion surely has a bizarre relationship, historically, with the way force is used. You have the knights templar, the chi rho, pope urban 2's pardon, and the warrior depiction of christ in early germanic culture. Bede has a chapter that describes the sacrifice of a pagan king's sons, if I recall, by their christian conquerors. All that, and there is actually very little fighting in the new testament, from the lead characters - excepting the dream-like sequences in revelation, which are tenuously relatable to day-to-day reality.

It really is something of an enigma, that crosses would find their way onto actual shields, and that the religion would somehow motivate the knight's templar etc. The new testament, overall, seems to stress the fact that 'judgement,' forceful or otherwise, is strictly in the hands of god. I believe that the earliest christians were martyrs more than warriors.. Though I'm not so sure about that even, when I think back to various things I may have read in josephus

 

[Redemptionsong]

I certainly flies in the face of the ways of the world but it seems to be one of those things where different Christians have different views and I don't want to judge brothers and sisters either way and dislike the stand of some who hold up their particular brand of Christianity and say that they do not fight in wars so they are morally superior to other brands of Christianity.

It's a fair point that you make. As I said, in my youth I thought differently! It may be that my faith has deepened, and my understanding with it! That does not mean that I judge others who take a different stance.

Recently I was watching a PBS America broadcast about the atomic tests in the Pacific. One nuclear bomb that was tested was reckoned to be 1000 x the power of the bomb dropped on Hiroshima. Anyone who looks at the destructiveness of war, and at the potential risks involved in proliferation, must question the whole rationale.

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

What about all the wars HaShem commanded in the Tanakh? He's called the Lord of Armies over and over again; he calls himself this. It seems at odds with this kind of pacifism.

What can we honestly expect from the Christian God when he creates evil, disaster and calamity (Isaiah 45:7)? God's treatment of humanity has been extremely atrocious, sadistic tyrannical and cruel. He is undeniably guilty of immeasurable crimes against humanity. He is undeniably guilty of committing global genocide. According to the Bible, God has foreknowledge and infinite wisdom, therefore, he knew before he created anything that mankind would fall into depravity. And according to the Bible, God has infinite power, which means he could immediately intervene and stop the immeasurable human suffering, but he turns a blind eye.

In the King James Version, Isaiah 45:7 reads, "I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things." Evil is defined as 1. Morally bad or wrong; wicked, 2. Causing ruin, injury, or pain; harmful, and 3. Characterized by or indicating future misfortune; ominous.

In the New International Version, Isaiah 45:7 reads, "I form the light and create darkness, I bring prosperity and create disaster; I, the LORD, do all these things." Disaster is defined as 1. An occurrence causing widespread destruction and distress; a catastrophe, 2. A grave misfortune, and 3. A total failure.

In the English Standard Version, Isaiah 45:7 reads "I form light and create darkness; I make well-being and create calamity; I am the LORD, who does all these things." Calamity is defined as 1. An event that brings terrible loss, lasting distress, or severe affliction; a disaster, 2. Dire distress resulting from loss or tragedy, and 3. Any great misfortune or cause of misery; in general, any event or disaster which produces extensive evils, as loss of crops, earthquakes, etc., but also applied to any misfortune which brings great distress upon a single person; misfortune; distress; adversity.

 

[ChristineM]

Agreed. IMO, religion, especially when politicised, is based on law and not grace.

Often a law imposed by the religion.

 

[viole]

Some people regard non-violence as a form of cowardice, but my belief is that it is better to sacrifice one's life non-violently, than to sacrifice it attempting to take the lives of others. Jesus set an example of non-violence.

So, if your children are threatened, you just rather them be killed, than use violence to prevent that?

Ciao

- viole

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

At points in the past, as a younger soul, I tried to justify defensive warfare, but as an older person I have become convinced of the rightness of non-violence.

Have you seen what is called the Popper paradox? :

"Popper argues that: An open society needs to be intolerant of intolerance. This Paradox of Tolerance, as it came to be known, argues that intolerant behaviors, irrespective of any judgement of the values that underlie them, ought to be actively fought against in order to preserve an inclusive society."

It's not really a paradox. It's a refinement of what is meant by tolerance. Tolerance doesn't apply in all situations. It only applies when dealing with other tolerant people willing to live together nonconfrontationally. The intolerant do not get this treatment, nor should they if we don't wish to allow them to express their intolerance to those they would oppress. We can call this situational ethics, or, "the doctrine of flexibility in the application of moral laws according to circumstances."

This is the basis of the idea that whereas it is immoral to open fire and attack a person not immediately threatening you, it is moral to return fire in self defense. I agree with this, so I'd have to say that I don't hold your position that there is honor in remaining passive while being struck down. As with tolerance, if you want peace, if you want to live in a society that is mutually tolerant and peaceful, sometimes, you have to pick up arms to restore the peace.

Where's the benefit to anybody but the aggressor to have such a passive doctrine? I suppose that if you believe a deity has commanded you to do so, you comply without challenge. You don't need to think about whether that is a good approach. But absent that, where is the merit in such a doctrine?