Jesus and war

[Pearly Di]

Since nations do have the right to wage war, we have to accept that on some level. That doesn't mean Christians can't speak out against war and injustice - we obviously are supposed to do that, too. But it might help to explain why not all Christians are complete pacifists and conscientious objectors.

Bolding mine. I think that's a very important point.

I admire the Quakers and the Mennonites for their strong pacifist stance, but I do not think other Christians should be tarred as 'war mongers' simply because they are not pacifists.

I hate war, and I am a Christian, but I'm not a pacifist. That's because I don't think England was morally wrong to declare war on Hitler for invading Poland. And I do think that nations have a right to defend themselves against an aggressive nation who wants to invade them.

And I still think war is absolutely hideous.

[yovargas]

I still contend that making a distinction between the actions of a nation vs the actions of an individual are morally irrelevant since a nation's actions are carried out by individuals. I do wonder why the words that "If someone takes your cloak, do not stop him from taking your tunic." should apply differently if someone tries to take your country instead of your clothes.

[MithLuin]

Cause the nation isn't Christian?

I mean, talking about what Christians should do and what countries should do is usually going to be different, unless it's the Vatican City State or something.

And it is generally fair to ask, how Christian are these Christians? While all Christians are called to be saints, that doesn't mean that many of us are.

To follow up on your cloak/tunic issue, that doesn't mean that Christians don't file police reports when people take their stuff. And while you will occassionally get people to be like the bishop in Les Mis and say 'oh, you forgot the candlesticks...' in general, no one in modern society expects you to do that. It's more of a high ideal that takes some work to get to. You have to be pretty detached to just give your stuff away.

Just pointing out some cultural elements. In a poorer African American community, you would be expected to share your things with those who need them, especially if it's anything like a windfall of cash. In Medieval Europe, the king/nobles would wear expensive jewels on their robes with the understanding that the commoners would steal them at a feast. It was part of the way things were done, and how to be a king - catching or punishing the thief wasn't something they were concerned with. So, there are cases where that verse is more integrated, but to most people reading this, it's going to sound pretty...foreign.

Peace is something that occurs (or is lacking) at all levels of society, from an individual's home to the community...all the way up to the level of international relations. Pointing out the need for justice is really just a way of saying that you need to achieve peace on the local level, and not just focus on war as the only example of whether or not people are living in peace.

*crossposted with Narya*

[narya]

In a society whose highest goal are cooperation, mutual respect, and caring for one another (what some would identify as root Christian values), violence is cheating, plain and simple.

On a personal level, if you want something that someone has, or you want someone to stop acting or speaking the way he is, you can use peaceful, cooperative means to work for that end, or you can beat him up, or threaten to beat him up. Same works for nations.

Sometimes people force our hand by being unremittingly violent, or lying, or stealing, or in some other ways not playing by the rules. When confronted with such cheating, I have to decide, "should I cheat, too?" It may be expedient to do so, but not necessarily right.

This is especially difficult when confronted by a person or a society that plays by one set of rules for its own inner group, but for the "other", all bets are off. We don't treat mosquitoes, cows, dogs, "<insert your favorite racial slur here>", or other sub-humans the way we treat our friends and family.

[Pearly Di]

I still contend that making a distinction between the actions of a nation vs the actions of an individual are morally irrelevant since a nation's actions are carried out by individuals. I do wonder why the words that "If someone takes your cloak, do not stop him from taking your tunic." should apply differently if someone tries to take your country instead of your clothes.

Because, as Mith points out, a nation isn't Christian. Only individuals can be. Since not everybody in my country is a Christian, why should I expect my non-Christian fellow citizens to accept the words of Jesus as relevant to that particular situation?

I mean: isn't that what secular liberals get so upset about? When Christians try to impose Christianity on them? Doesn't exactly the same principle apply here? Why should atheist Britons accept that we ought to let our country be invaded? Because I tell them we should all turn the other cheek and let the enemy right on in, because Jesus told us to? What would give me the right to dictate to other people that way?

I might be happy to sacrifice myself to my enemy, personally, but I can't possibly ask that of others.

As I said before, I really do respect Christians who are pacifists. Maybe they're better Christians than me. I can live with that. Pacifism is just not a position I can hold. At the moment, anyway.

[halplm]

I still contend that making a distinction between the actions of a nation vs the actions of an individual are morally irrelevant since a nation's actions are carried out by individuals. I do wonder why the words that "If someone takes your cloak, do not stop him from taking your tunic." should apply differently if someone tries to take your country instead of your clothes.

One thing to keep in mind, yov, is that Jesus almost entirely spoke in parables. Pulling things out of context and takign them literally can actually present the wrong idea.

Also, you have to remember early on in Christianity, Christians were hunted down and persecuted. It was a very dangerious thing to be a Christian.

Most Christian denominations in the US are descended from people leaving other countries because they were persecuted there.

Having a safe place, where we can be ourselves and worship God as we like, is a very important thing, and something worth fighting for. I don't think that is in conflict with anything Jesus said. And I think it further allows us to continue the work he gave us, which was to spread the word about him...

[Nin]

You see, I, on the other hand am not a Christian - but a pacifist.

I know some wars have to be fought - like the one against Hitler. But I also know I could not have done it. In other words, my personal choice is to prefer death to killing. I cannot bear the idea of physically hurting someone, I refuse to touch a weapon and I hope my boys will refuse the army.

Attitude towards war has in my experience nothing to do with religion. Nothing at all.

[Teremia]

Just standing up for a moment -- in silence, of course -- as a Quaker Pacifist.

[Túrin Turambar]

But I also know I could not have done it. In other words, my personal choice is to prefer death to killing.

Just to complicate things, how about death of a loved one to killing?

[JewelSong]

Just to complicate things, how about death of a loved one to killing?

I am quite certain that the only time I might be able to actually kill another human being is if they were threatening one of my children.

If that was the case, there would be no thinking about it for me. It would be pure instinct...if someone was hurting one of my children and I could stop them and the only way to stop them was to kill them, I would have no second thoughts about doing it. It would be as natural to me as breathing.

Similarly, if the only way I could save my child was by dying, I would do that as well. That instinct goes very deep.

[Nin]

But I also know I could not have done it. In other words, my personal choice is to prefer death to killing.

Just to complicate things, how about death of a loved one to killing?

Yov - if I could save one of my children by killing someone? I can think of very litte situations in which this could occur. If my child is taken hostage? Be hostage in his place... I would offer this immediately. If someone would threaten me to kill my child unless I would kill another, innocent person? I could not do it. I might - like JewelSong says - hit in instinct a person threatening my child. But that supposes that the person is present within the range of my hands. In that situation I cannot imagine how killing might save my child.

Sacrifice myself of course, yes.

[MithLuin]

I sincerely hope that no one on this messageboard is ever put into such a position.

I kill bugs that are in my house without qualms. Beyond that...I'm not a fan of killing, either.