Should Christians ever fight?

Post Reply New Topic

As I understand things, Jesus told his followers always to turn the other cheek. It someone mugged you and tried to steal your coat, give him your shirt as well. If a soldier, terrorist or other bully forced you to carry his stuff for him for a mile, go ahead and carry it for two miles.

First century Christians were very happy to accept rather gruesome martyrdoms, as testimony to their faith.

According to my understanding, things changed when the Emperor Constantine starting flirting with Christianity, and had his soldiers use Christian symbols on their shields. For the first time, we see Christianity married to militarism.

Was this acceptable, or complete and utter blasphemy?

Should Christians ever fight? Or, should they remain forever passive? Should Christians abstain from warfare?

Should a Christian allow anyone to rob him, torture him, and murder him? Or, should a Christian fight back?

What you're talking about is an ideal that Christians are to work towards. We ought to be prepared to give more than is required of us.

Another way of looking at it is that "turning the other cheek" is the unexpected response, whereas responding in kind is the expected behavior. This forces the person guilty of mistreating a Christian to either respect the Christian or question his motives. At any rate, it is strange behavior, and one may begin to ask questions as to why such behavior was displayed. That opens up a channel for Christian witness.

Christians are instructed to willingly give up their lives for others (altruism). If someone were to threaten my home and family, I'd have no problem putting myself in harms way to protect my wife and children. Likewise, I'd have no problem nor remorse for killing someone who put me in the kind of position to make that choice. I would also have the law on my side.

Christians are also expected to perform their civil duties, including going to war to protect the interests of their homeland.

Basically, pacifism is a commendable trait of Christians. But it is just as honorable if a Christian can distinguish among those times in which fighting is necessary and appropriate, or whether the best response is to simply walk away. The one thing Christians aren't allowed to do is engage in any action contrary to principle. That's why there was such an uproar from many over Obamacare. The authors of Obamacare attempted to sneak in federally-mandated funding for abortion. This would violate what many believe as sanctity of life, but is only made worse by the fact that Christians are encouraged to pay their tax obligations. In a free society, this kind of action necessarily violates freedom of religion.

Christians also disagree on specific areas of faith. However, debate is a GOOD thing in that it helps us discern among those beliefs that are consistent with Biblical teaching and those which are not.

So, if you were going to be tortured to death, on a cross, for instance, would you fight to save yourself?

Or, would it make a difference what the purpose was? For example, if you were going to be executed for being a Christian, would you accept the punishment in this instance, in order to achieve martyrdom? But put up a fight in other instances? Say, if you were going to be executed for not paying a library fine?

The answer is: It depends. I wouldn't fight to save myself unless I had a good reason to--to care for my family or to prevent others from meeting a similar fate. Self denial is a virtue.

I would not accept punishment for the purpose of achieving martyrdom. Becoming a martyr is an empty exercise that glorifies the self. But I would accept death if that were the only alternative to recanting my beliefs.

Something as silly as not paying a library fine... Well, that's just an inappropriate punishment, period. If I had the liberty to, I'd fight to have such laws repealed. That's injustice. In the USA, we have the liberty to fight injustice, to do the things we OUGHT to do. That has nothing to do with being a Christian. That's just AMERICAN.

Does anyone need to hear my opinion to know what I think or can you infer from my current avatar, rank, and signature what I think?

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xxElnjaWiQE[/youtube]

The principal of non-resistance to evil is a good one, but it is a principal not an axiom. For the most part, evil needs to be resisted to grow if not survive. Nobody wants to think of himself as evil and people doing evil will go to considerable effort to convince themselves that their victims deserved it. A mugger who killed you for your sneakers will tell himself that you deserved to die because you should have given them to him. But what if you did and he then wanted your jacket so you gave him that too, then he wanted your shirt so you gave him that, then he wanted you to strip naked and you decided that was going too far. Is that sinful? I don't think so.

It might have been different for Jesus because his life's objective was to be the victim of all sin without responding to any of it in kind. It is an example for us all to follow but not to condemn ourselves, or be condemned, if we fall short.

That doesn't matter in Christianity. There are several places where Jesus instructed his followers to act differently than the normal legal manner. He explicitly says "Do not resist the evildoer... if anyone wants to sue you and take your coat, give your cloak as well."


I don't see that anywhere in Scripture. The closest you could find would be "render unto Caesar" and Romans 13, but I think you would be pushing it pretty far to say we have an obligation to go to war, certainly for something as simple as "national interests." The concept of a "just war" was developed later in Christian theology (and, I would argue, with relatively weak Scriptural support), and the requirements for a just war are much more stringent than the grounds on which any modern nation-state will march.


But killing is quite plainly contrary to principle, so by your own argument Christians cannot fight a war. I don't see where you get the notion that it is honorable for a Christian to know when fighting is "appropriate."


Well... you are factually inaccurate on that point. There was an uproar because of a concerted misinformation campaign. Not to say the bill was ideal or even necessarily good, but most of the criticisms that received a lot of attention were completely baseless.


Looking at the Bible, it is a LOT easier to make a case for pacifism than it is to make a case against it.

There was at least one Centurion who became a Christian, and I doubt Cornelius in Acts 10 gave up his profession and neither would have the Centurion of Matthew 8:5-13, and these are examples in the New Testament. In the Old Testament there are plenty of examples to say warfare isn't evil in and of itself. However, I'm certain that pacifism helps to add a nice rose colored hermeneutic for those who wish for the world's form of peace.

You jest. The pages of the Bible are filled with bloodshed, war, plunder, rape and oppression. There is damned little peace in those pages.

From the days of Abraham to the present day the human race has not changed an iota. We are still the smartest, baddest apes in the primate house.

ruveyn

Yeah, and unlike orangutans or chimpanzees or gorillas, we design catapults, developed metallurgy, produce swords, spears, bows and arrows, rifles and tanks. I disagree with you that we are part of the primate house, but we are certainly guerrillas etymologically speaking.

Self glorifying, shaved chimps.

Wrong, since, although chimpanzees may be trained to shave, they cannot be self glorifying or otherwise do the myriad of functions that any non-handicapped human either can do or learn to do intellectually, with understanding, rather than merely by repetition or rout.

Tool use has been observed in chimpanzees, if you want to say that it is technology that sets us apart from them. Chimps can also learn by observation (they have mirror neurons too). They also appear to be at least somewhat self-aware.

Dude it's just a metaphor.

I can't read this question without immediately thinking of my son. He's aspie, and he's Christian (became such most unexpectedly a few years ago... he wasn't "raised in the faith.")

Before he was Christian he used to fight back against the bullies, and was respected for it.

Since then he's has continued to be attacked, but he hasn't fought back. One of the most profoundly upsetting (and yet strangely uplifting) experiences I ever had was when we were sitting in Accident and Emergency, him with a black eye, swollen nose, waiting to see the emergency doctor... and he started praying for the boy who assaulted him.

I won't answer the question, I'll simply let my son's experience speak for itself. His doctors, the police who were involved in the investigation, everyone was struck by my son's complete lack of vindictiveness.

I don't know what ripples his unusual forgiveness might have caused.

(And yes, if I'd found the guy, I'd have beaten him to a bloody pulp and made him eat his testicles. I'm not as good a Christian as my son.)

Your son would be a better witness than I would be in this matter. With my stepdad, I could only put up with his physical abusiveness for three years, after that I threw him out the door and he realized I was no longer easy to torment. Unfortunately then, he switched tactics to just destroying my property instead of attacking me. But, of course, it wasn't my property he destroyed since, "everything in the house belongs to Gary."