Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Rhea · 10-10-2003, 10:56 AM

Quote:

Matthew 5
38"You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.'[1] 39But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. 40And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well.

Luke 6
28bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. 29If someone strikes you on one cheek, turn to him the other also. If someone takes your cloak, do not stop him from taking your tunic. 30Give to everyone who asks you, and if anyone takes what belongs to you, do not demand it back.

So...

How does a Christian justify participation in the military?
How does a Christian justify voting for war (congress)
How does a Christian justify proposing a war? (president)

How does a Christian participate in violence and resistance at all - even self defense - without directly going against Jesus' explicit teachings?

How else can you interpret this scripture than an admonition for all True Christians� to be complete pacifists?

...

Corrollary:
and if the reply is, "there comes a time you have to defend" in dirct contradiction to what Jesus explicitly commands, then I ask,

from what?

Death? Doesn't that send a good christian to heaven? Why the reluctance to go there?
Persecution? Doesn't Jesus tell you that you will be blessed for that?
Hardship? Doesn't he say that is the way to the lord?

MyrnaMinkoff · 10-10-2003, 11:13 AM

There is a book written to address this very issue. The cover is very striking; every time I walk through the Christian section of the bookstore I want to buy it, but I always try to buy Christian or hardcore conservative books secondhand (don't want to contribute cash to the cause).

When God Says War Is Right: The Christian's Perspective on When and How to Fight

I haven't read it, just thought you might want to read it if you're really interested in their perspective. <opinion>Probably, though, it's a lot of out-of-context scripture and "might is right" and "God has blessed us so we must prosper at the cost of others" type BS.</opinion>

<Edited to add revenue link - liv>

Rhea · 10-10-2003, 11:20 AM

Thanks for the link.

Wow...

Quote:

Dr. Cole focuses on Romans 13, where Paul commands us to �do what is right� (or �good� or �noble�) in regard to our governing authorities, who have legitimate war-making authority. In the case of war, what is �right� for the Christian? This book answers that essential question. In today�s war-stricken world, Dr. Cole provides timely, trustworthy, and vitally needed guidance for Christians.

So Paul is righter than Jesus!

Wow!

:notworthy Paul.

Quote:

Cole regards just war as a positive good. Failure to protect and preserve peace through the use of force is not simply being irresponsible, but less-than righteous. Soldiers therefore have chosen a virtuous, "holy vocation".

Wow. It's holy to defy Jesus.
Paul was ambiguous. Jesus was not.

Jesus: "Do not resist an evil person" Period.
Paul: Don't listen to him. You can if your government gives you permission.

Interesting that they don't mention Jesus' words in any of the reviews...

How _DO_ people embrace this knife in the heart of Jesus?

livius drusus · 10-10-2003, 11:28 AM

This is an interesting topic, Rhea. Thank you for bringing it up. Just to add to the data, here is the Mennonite position on the scriptural and doctrinal injunctions against combat: A Christian Declaration on Peace, War, and Military Service. Notice that they will not be involved in war even tangentially.

From the link:

Quote:

In the light of the foregoing statements of belief and in the sincere desire to stand with Christ, the Prince of Peace, we cannot approve military service in any form. Our position leads us to the following convictions:

We are constrained of Christ to take no part in warfare or military service as combatants or as noncombatants because both forms of service have as their ultimate military end the impairment and destruction of life or property of our fellow men.
We cannot with clear conscience apply our labor, money or material resources for the furtherances of military ends. For example, we cannot remain true to our peace witness if we purchase war bonds or work in defense industries.
We cannot serve under civilian organizations if their purposes are diverted to military objectives.
We declare it unchristian to share in wartime propaganda, hysteria, and mass hatred and revenge.
We are aware that as laborers, employers, farmers, professional people, and property holders we benefit from the inflationary values of wartime. We therefore hold ourselves morally responsible to share generously these monetary gains for the relief of human suffering and the spread of the Gospel.
If we reject military service, it follows that we can have no part in any form of peacetime or wartime preparation for that service--such as training in schools and colleges or participating in other forms of scientific, educational or cultural programs designed to contribute to military purposes.
We continue to witness against universal military conscription with its injurious effects on the moral fibre of men and nations. Because we cannot support military conscription in any form we seek to find alternative patterns of service that both satisfy and transcend the demands of the state. We pledge ourselves to the sacrificial support of these alternative services.
If war does come again with all its possible terrors of destructiveness, bombing, atomic blasts, bacteriological warfare, poison gas--we declare our readiness to serve sacrificially to save and restore life but not to destroy it. In the light of our above statements it follows, however, that we cannot serve in civilian defense programs if they are under military direction, designed to fulfill military objectives.

seebs · 10-10-2003, 12:02 PM

There are a couple of answers to this.

One answer is to assert that, in fact, the original comments depended on references to social mores; in particular, striking someone on one cheek had an implication, and the other cheek had a different one. I think this was also the "If someone compel you to go with him a mile, go with him another mile" section, and the claim is that that, and the "tunic" thing, had to do with the right of soldiers to demand certain services; by giving them more, you turned them from people who had power over you into charity cases.

I am personally wholly agnostic on this claim. I certainly can't disprove it, since I don't know that much about period culture.

Another argument, which is the one I personally use, but which I'm not sure is right, is this:

It is permitted to defend others, but not necessarily yourself. However, once you have established this, there are a couple of arguments that suggest some circumstances where it should be extended to the self.

One argument would be the "repeat offender" argument; if I let this person rob me, or harm me, he will go on to do the same thing to others.

Another argument is the argument from generalization; the goal of the self-denial of Christianity is not to totally abnegate the self (this isn't Buddhism) but to stop seeing the self as superior to, or more important than, all the other people. If you could in good conscience take actions to defend another person, you can take those same actions to defend the self.

I'm not entirely convinced of any of these, frankly.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

10-10-2003, 11:13 AM	#2
MyrnaMinkoff Regular Member Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Oklahoma Posts: 272	There is a book written to address this very issue. The cover is very striking; every time I walk through the Christian section of the bookstore I want to buy it, but I always try to buy Christian or hardcore conservative books secondhand (don't want to contribute cash to the cause). When God Says War Is Right: The Christian's Perspective on When and How to Fight I haven't read it, just thought you might want to read it if you're really interested in their perspective. <opinion>Probably, though, it's a lot of out-of-context scripture and "might is right" and "God has blessed us so we must prosper at the cost of others" type BS.</opinion> <Edited to add revenue link - liv>

10-10-2003, 12:02 PM	#5
seebs Contributor Join Date: May 2002 Location: Saint Paul, MN Posts: 24,524	There are a couple of answers to this. One answer is to assert that, in fact, the original comments depended on references to social mores; in particular, striking someone on one cheek had an implication, and the other cheek had a different one. I think this was also the "If someone compel you to go with him a mile, go with him another mile" section, and the claim is that that, and the "tunic" thing, had to do with the right of soldiers to demand certain services; by giving them more, you turned them from people who had power over you into charity cases. I am personally wholly agnostic on this claim. I certainly can't disprove it, since I don't know that much about period culture. Another argument, which is the one I personally use, but which I'm not sure is right, is this: It is permitted to defend others, but not necessarily yourself. However, once you have established this, there are a couple of arguments that suggest some circumstances where it should be extended to the self. One argument would be the "repeat offender" argument; if I let this person rob me, or harm me, he will go on to do the same thing to others. Another argument is the argument from generalization; the goal of the self-denial of Christianity is not to totally abnegate the self (this isn't Buddhism) but to stop seeing the self as superior to, or more important than, all the other people. If you could in good conscience take actions to defend another person, you can take those same actions to defend the self. I'm not entirely convinced of any of these, frankly.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.