Christian Warfare

[Altfish]

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?

How do you reconcile your belief in no-violence with God wiping out the whole population of the earth apart from Noah and his family in the great flood?

 

[Redemptionsong]

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.

I not sure that this comment was meant for me, but if you don't mind me answering ...

In Christ, mercy is offered to people before judgement finally comes. The Tanakh shows us the judgement that God is able to deliver.

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.

The whole point, which I'm sure you recognise as a Jew, was that the traders had moved into an area of the Temple which was not intended for their use. If their activities were not illegal, then they were certainly sacrilegious.

 

[Rival]

I not sure that this comment was meant for me, but if you don't mind me answering ...

In Christ, mercy is offered to people before judgement finally comes. The Tanakh shows us the judgement that God is able to deliver.

I'm not sure what this has to do with pacifism.

 

[Redemptionsong]

How do you reconcile your belief in no-violence with God wiping out the whole population of the earth apart from Noah and his family in the great flood?

Rival seemed to be making a similar point.

I see a difference between living under law, and under grace. Under law, justice applies. Under grace, mercy applies. The only thing that needs to be added to this little equation is the time limitation placed on mercy. There comes a point in time when God brings judgement on the world, and at that point the opportunity to find mercy recedes, until it is finally gone!

 

[Psalm23]

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 believe in many situations there ought to be
non-violence. I believe violence in self defense or in defense of others in harm's way is morally justified.

 

[Rival]

Rival seemed to be making a similar observation.

I see a difference between living under law, and under grace. Under law, justice applies. Under grace, mercy applies. The only thing that needs to be added to this little equation is the time limitation placed on mercy. There comes a point in time when God brings judgement on the world, and at that point the opportunity to find mercy recedes, until it is finally gone!

But this is the same God. God is unchanging, and if he calls himself the Lord of Hosts/Armies, and you believe Jesus is this God, then Jesus is the Lord of Armies.

 

[Redemptionsong]

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

Ciao

- viole

I hope I would refuse to be separated from my child.

 

[Audie]

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 think it sounds nice, and is sometimes true.

I also think a man who would not protect
his woman, his family by any means necessary
is no man at all, worthy at best of utter contempt and permanent banishment from
human company.

 

[Redemptionsong]

But this is the same God. God is unchanging, and if he calls himself the Lord of Hosts/Armies, and you believe Jesus is this God, then Jesus is the Lord of Armies.

It's the same God, but a different covenant.

 

[Harel13]

The whole point, which I'm sure you recognise as a Jew, was that the traders had moved into an area of the Temple which was not intended for their use.

I don't know how you know this.

If their activities were not illegal, then they were certainly sacrilegious.

To Jesus, in any case. But what others thought of it - entirely unclear. If it even happened, that is.

 

[Redemptionsong]

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?

The merit in the approach is that good is used to overcome evil.

IMO, the Gospel is confrontational without being violent. Resistance can be the same.

 

[Redemptionsong]

How do you reconcile your belief in no-violence with God wiping out the whole population of the earth apart from Noah and his family in the great flood?

The story of Noah is a story of both mercy and judgement. Noah and his family experienced the mercy of God, and were saved from the flood. Those that perpetrated evil in the sight of God perished in the flood.

To my understanding, Jesus Christ offers mercy until the day that judgement finally comes. Roughly two thousand years has elapsed since the coming of Jesus, which has allowed for the message of salvation to be spread around the world.

 

[Sand Dancer]

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.

Yahweh and Jesus were sometimes at odds with each other. Jesus improved on the OT a few times in Matthew.

 

[syo]

A peaceful me would use karate. A violent me would use knives or guns.

 

[Rival]

Yahweh and Jesus were sometimes at odds with each other. Jesus improved on the OT a few times in Matthew.

Improved would be a matter of debate, but certainly they are not the same, I agree.

 

[Audie]

The story of Noah is a story of both mercy and judgement. Noah and his family experienced the mercy of God, and were saved from the flood. Those that perpetrated evil in the sight of God perished in the flood.

To my understanding, Jesus Christ offers mercy until the day that judgement finally comes. Roughly two thousand years has elapsed since the coming of Jesus, which has allowed for the message of salvation to be spread around the world.

The innocent little children that would have died (if the story were true), we just kinda forget about them, or, ftm the " firstborn of Egypt",
similarly innocent.
Then here comes someone intent on torture
and murder, and absolute morality bids you
just say " dearie me, this behaviour is immoral"?

 

[Redemptionsong]

I'm not sure what this has to do with pacifism.

The NT message is about the forgiveness of sins, and the power to live a holy (loving) life. How can one be said to live a holy life if, at the same time, you seek to take away the life of another?

Martin Luther King understood the relationship between faith in Christ and non-violence. And, as is often the way, it cost him his (earthly) life.

 

[Nakosis]

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 feel I have a right to protect myself and others from aggression.
Certainly I'd seek other avenues to deescalate first.
However if we resort to violence we'd have to be willing to be judged for our action or lack of action.

 

[Redemptionsong]

The innocent little children that would have died (if the story were true), we just kinda forget about them, or, ftm the " firstborn of Egypt",
similarly innocent.
Then here comes someone intent on torture
and murder, and absolute morality bids you
just say " dearie me, this behaviour is immoral"?

It's you that is calling these people innocent. In the sight of God, they were not innocent. They were wicked and corrupt. And, since God is omniscient, He knows that the children will grow up to be like their parents.

 

[Kenny]

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?

Romans 14 talks about Christians who have different positions but that in each case they, "do it as unto the Lord"..

Can both be right? Wrestling against principalities but, as with Paul, realizing that there are some who are against God and demand a judgment?\

At much as it is in your power, seek peace but if your neighbor is about to be tortured and killed, love them a little more than just sit idly by?