Military Service wrong for Christians

The passage from First Peter that you cited is a false prophecy. The end was not at hand. Revelation begins and ends with a similar false prophecy....

The fact that nobody can please two gods--Caesar and Jehovah--goes far beyond questions involving military service. God demands that we choose either Him or Caesar in everything....

Pacifisim--The idea that a woman beaten, raped, and murdered in an alley is morally superior than a woman standing with a dead rapist at her feet with a weapon in her hand.

Myself, personally, if I see a woman being raped, or child being beaten, it is my responsibility to stop it. If I am too scared to stop it physically, Imma call 911 wit my cell phone G.

There is nothing un-Christian in using force to protect the innocents or your own life if threatened, as long as your intent is to stop the offense and not to specifically kill the offender, although that might happen accidentally (maybe because a gun is the only weapon you had at hand, or because an improvised weapon like a club or a rock can turn out to be deadly against your wishes). To stop an offense almost never require to kill, so the difference is whether you want it or not.

Letting yourself be murdered because you refuse to use force is probably going to make you a Saint, but that doesn't mean self-defense leads you to hell... the difference is all in the heart, if it hates or not.

But military service means another thing: it means that once you're in, you have to obey the orders whether you agree with them or not. If they order you to kill someone you cannot question it, you cannot ask why or disagree, you just have to comply even if you are sure you're murdering an innocent. Knowing that this can happen should be enough for a Christian to avoid enrolling in an army or another para-military organization. (Police is different: a policeman is never ordered to shoot someone who isn't an immediate threat).

armyman_83 said:

Pacifisim--The idea that a woman beaten, raped, and murdered in an alley is morally superior than a woman standing with a dead rapist at her feet with a weapon in her hand.

Click to expand...

Just as long as her ghost does not consider her morally superior, she might make it to Paradise. Of course, the fact that the rapist is still alive means that he remains free to brutalize, rape, and murder another woman--maybe even many more women. What is so dang morally superior about that?

he-man said:

The idea of Soldiers who rape and kill is a known fact, Their barbarious acts are as deplorable as their bombing of innocent civilians both women and children!

The Church and human reason both assert the permanent validity of the moral law during armed conflict. The mere fact that war has regrettably broken out does not mean that everything becomes licit between the warring parties (CCC 2312).
A particular danger in wartime is brutality toward those not engaged in combat. Frequently in the history of warfare, soldiers have maimed, raped, and even killed those who did not pose a physical threat to them. Sometimes this has escalated into genocide.​

Every act of war directed to the indiscriminate destruction of whole cities or vast areas with their inhabitants is a crime against God and man, which merits firm and unequivocal condemnation. A danger of modern warfare is that it provides the opportunity to those who possess modern scientific weapons -- especially atomic, biological, or chemical weapons -- to commit such crimes (CCC 2314).​

The U.S. has not always been committed to this principle. In the Civil War, World War I, and World War II the United States violated it. Grave violations during World War II included the firebombing of Dresden and the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

These were not attacks designed to destroy targets of military value while sparing civilian populations.
They were deliberate attempts to put pressure on enemy governments by attacking non-combatants. As a result, they were grave violations of God's law, according to which, "the direct and voluntary killing of an innocent human being is always gravely immoral" (John Paul II, Evangelium Vitae 57).​

The law of double-effect would not have applied to the cases of Dresden, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki.​

The final condition has to do with the foreseen consequences of the war. Even if a victory can be foreseen, the damage that is done by the war itself must be taken into account. ​

As the Catechism notes, the weapons of mass destruction that are available to many nations play a large

part in evaluating whether this condition is met.​

The use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modern means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.
Just War Doctrine | Catholic Answers

And do not forget there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.​

"Towards the close of his treatise, Celsus dealt with the customary refusal of the Christians to serve in the Imperial legions and to hold public office. He was concerned for the safety of the Empire in the face of the attacks of the barbarian tribes of central Europe.
And, indignant though he was at what he regarded as the selfish lack of patriotism on the part of the Christians, he mingled appeals with his reproaches, and begged them to abandon their fanaticism and take their share in the common task of defending the civilization of the Empire from destruction."
(Celsus) not only exhorts the Christians to take part in civil government, but ‘urges us to help the Emperor with all (our) strength, and to labor with him (in maintaining) justice, and to fight for him and serve as soldiers with him, if he requires (it), and to share military command (with him)​

Reply to Celsus by Origenes.
First, in replying to the objection that, if all did the same as the Christians, the Emperor would be deserted, and the Empire would fall a prey to the barbarians, Origenes says: "On this supposition" (that all did the same as himself and

took no part in war...) "the Emperor would not be left alone or deserted, nor would the world’s affairs fall into the hands of the most lawless and savage barbarians.​

​

​

For if, as Celsus says, all were to do the same as I do, clearly the barbarians also, coming to the Word of God, would be most law-abiding and mild; and every religious worship would be abolished, and that alone of the Christians would hold sway, the Word ever taking possession of more (and more) souls." "How much more (reasonable it is that), when others are serving in the army, these (Christians) should do their military service as priests and servants of God...

Cadoux Christian Pacifism Re-examined, p. 230-231​

Click to expand...

"Blessed be the LORD my strength, which teacheth my hands to war and my fingers to fight."--Ps. 144:1

Christ told Peter to put up his sword, not throw it away.

Christ told his followers to get them swords if they needed them.

he-man said:

The idea of Soldiers who rape and kill is a known fact, Their barbarious acts are as deplorable as their bombing of innocent civilians both women and children!

The Church and human reason both assert the permanent validity of the moral law during armed conflict. The mere fact that war has regrettably broken out does not mean that everything becomes licit between the warring parties (CCC 2312).
A particular danger in wartime is brutality toward those not engaged in combat. Frequently in the history of warfare, soldiers have maimed, raped, and even killed those who did not pose a physical threat to them. Sometimes this has escalated into genocide.​

Every act of war directed to the indiscriminate destruction of whole cities or vast areas with their inhabitants is a crime against God and man, which merits firm and unequivocal condemnation. A danger of modern warfare is that it provides the opportunity to those who possess modern scientific weapons -- especially atomic, biological, or chemical weapons -- to commit such crimes (CCC 2314).​

The U.S. has not always been committed to this principle. In the Civil War, World War I, and World War II the United States violated it. Grave violations during World War II included the firebombing of Dresden and the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

These were not attacks designed to destroy targets of military value while sparing civilian populations.
They were deliberate attempts to put pressure on enemy governments by attacking non-combatants. As a result, they were grave violations of God's law, according to which, "the direct and voluntary killing of an innocent human being is always gravely immoral" (John Paul II, Evangelium Vitae 57).​

The law of double-effect would not have applied to the cases of Dresden, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki.​

The final condition has to do with the foreseen consequences of the war. Even if a victory can be foreseen, the damage that is done by the war itself must be taken into account. ​

As the Catechism notes, the weapons of mass destruction that are available to many nations play a large

part in evaluating whether this condition is met.​

The use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modern means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.
Just War Doctrine | Catholic Answers

And do not forget there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.​

"Towards the close of his treatise, Celsus dealt with the customary refusal of the Christians to serve in the Imperial legions and to hold public office. He was concerned for the safety of the Empire in the face of the attacks of the barbarian tribes of central Europe.
And, indignant though he was at what he regarded as the selfish lack of patriotism on the part of the Christians, he mingled appeals with his reproaches, and begged them to abandon their fanaticism and take their share in the common task of defending the civilization of the Empire from destruction."
(Celsus) not only exhorts the Christians to take part in civil government, but ‘urges us to help the Emperor with all (our) strength, and to labor with him (in maintaining) justice, and to fight for him and serve as soldiers with him, if he requires (it), and to share military command (with him)​

Reply to Celsus by Origenes.
First, in replying to the objection that, if all did the same as the Christians, the Emperor would be deserted, and the Empire would fall a prey to the barbarians, Origenes says: "On this supposition" (that all did the same as himself and

took no part in war...) "the Emperor would not be left alone or deserted, nor would the world’s affairs fall into the hands of the most lawless and savage barbarians.​

​

​

For if, as Celsus says, all were to do the same as I do, clearly the barbarians also, coming to the Word of God, would be most law-abiding and mild; and every religious worship would be abolished, and that alone of the Christians would hold sway, the Word ever taking possession of more (and more) souls." "How much more (reasonable it is that), when others are serving in the army, these (Christians) should do their military service as priests and servants of God...

Cadoux Christian Pacifism Re-examined, p. 230-231​

Click to expand...

As you imply, He-man, America has no right to whine and cry about terrorism hurting her. She practically invented it. During the American revolution, as well as during the period leading up to it, the revolutionaries employed it against the British and British sympathizers. During the Civil War, the Union employed it against the South. During World War II, she employed it again and again before using the greatest of all terror weapons of Hiroshima and Nagasoki. Then she employed it, during the Vietnam War. More recently, she has employed it in the Afghanistan War by using those evil drones to blow up old people, women, and children, while allegedly killing so-called bad guys. Never mind that it is virtually impossible to verify who they're blowing up until afterward. Similar incidences happened in the Iraq War....

Such shenanigans is but one of many reasons why God is going to destroy her relatively soon....

he-man said:

U.S. Infantryman--"Follow Me to my Grave!

Psa 144:10It is He that giveth salvation unto kings: who delivereth David his servant from the hurtful sword.

2Co 10:3 For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war after the flesh:

4 (For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds

Eph 6:12 It is not that we struggle1 against flesh and blood, but against magistracy2, against powers, against the rulers of this obscurity3, against spiritual guile4 in high places.
1* Greek πάλη struggle, battle, grapple, bout, fight, combat, tussle, conflict, wrestle, wrestling, match, strife,

2* Greek αρχή magistracy, principles, doctrine, tenet, precepts, beginning, start, origination

3* Greek σκότος obscurity, gloom, darkness

4* Greek πονηριας guile, craft; deceitful cunning; artifice; duplicity; wile; deceit; treachery slyness

IRENAEUS (180 A.D.)
"For the Christians have changed their swords and their lances into instruments of peace, and they know not how to fight."​

JUSTIN MARTYR (150 A.D.)
"That the prophecy is fulfilled, you have good reason to believe, for we, who in times past killed one another, do not now fight with our enemies." "We, who had been filled with war and mutual slaughter and every wickedness, have each one-all the world over-changed the instruments of war, the swords into plows and the spears into farming implements, and we cultivate piety, righteousness, love for men, faith, (and) the hope which is from Father Himself through the Crucified One."​

Tertullianus writes: "Do we believe that...(a Christian) may (give a promise in) answer to another master after Christ...? Will it be lawful for him to occupy himself with the sword, when the Lord declares that he who uses the sword will perish by the sword?

Dymond An Inquiry Into the Accordancy of War with the Principles of Christianity
Cadoux Early Christian Attitude to War, p. 102 28 Ibid. p. 56, 158
Collier’s Encyclopedia, Vol. V, p. 612,​

Click to expand...

Again, Why did Christ not tell Peter to throw his sword away? Turn it into a plowshare?

Why was there no condemnation for being soldiers? Only to not misuse their power.

Early Christians were often encouraged to not be a soldier in the army of Rome, because the Emperor was still considered a god, and one had to pay him homage as such (this is counter to Christian thought).

Why did Christ tell his followers to get them swords if they needed them?

Pacifisim isn't piety.

he-man said:

It was not a sword, it was a small knife used for killing the passover lamb and small game.
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif][FONT=Tahoma, sans-serif]G3162 μαχαιρώνω μαχαίρι dirk, stab, small knife, dagger

Click to expand...

[/FONT][/FONT]

Ah you do quote strong's well....but not fully. Let me finish the part you are forgetting:

2) a small sword, as distinguished from a large sword
a) curved sword, for a cutting stroke
b) a straight sword, for thrusting

There we go....that makes it a bit more clear. I can use blue letter bible too my friend.

he-man said:

Read again...

Click to expand...

he-man said:

Lu 3:14 And soldiers also asked him, saying: And what should we do? And he said to them: no one do violence1 to, no one defame2, and let your salt3 suffice4.
1* Greek διασεσσητε use of force, violence

2* Greek συκοφαντώ, defame; slander

3* Greek οψωνιοις salt; services other than manual or mechanical distinguished from wages or fees

4* Greek αρκεω suffice (it) to say, used to indicate that one is withholding something for reasons of discretion. See above and he was talking about food, not swords, you really think 2 swords would be enough to hold off an army or angry crowd?

Click to expand...

I think that 2 swords is better than no sword. For an armed man is harder to molest than an unarmed man. Of course it isn't enough to stop an army, but to stop a small group of brigands I would rather be armed with two swords rather than none.

he-man said:

Lu 22:36 But now let the one who has a purse take it, and contract

Click to expand...

he-man said:

1. And likewise let the one who has no knife sell his cloak and buy. *Note the word "ONE" is not in the manuscripts, If you do not have any money or a knife to get food, then sell what you have in order to survive
1* Greek πηραν παίρνω contract, To draw up or contract into folds or wrinkles, like the mouth of a purse,

38 And they said, Lord, behold, here are two knives1. And he said unto them, To be present is sufficient.
1* Greek μαχαίρι dirk, stab, small knife, dagger

"To those who ask us whence we have come or whom we have (for) a leader, we say that we have come in accordance with the counsels of Jesus to cut down our warlike and arrogant swords of argument into plowshares, and we convert into sickles the spears we formerly used in fighting. ​

For we no longer take ‘sword against a nation,’ nor do we learn any more to make war, having become sons of peace for the sake of Jesus, who is our leader, instead of (following) the ancestral (customs)."

"And the reason why Christians avoid the public services of earthly life is not because they want to evade them, but because they are reserving themselves for the more Divine ad more needful service of the Church of God, taking the lead-at once needfully and righteously-in the salvation of men, and being concerned for all men..."
Cadoux Christian Pacifism Re-examined, p. 239​

Click to expand...

He-man, may I ask a question. I fear the thread is quite long and I have not the time to look through it. Are you just against military service to nation states? Or do you espouse pacifism aslo? I can see a contempt for military service, but praise for pacifism I cannot.

armyman_83 said:

"Blessed be the LORD my strength, which teacheth my hands to war and my fingers to fight."--Ps. 144:1

Christ told Peter to put up his sword, not throw it away.

Christ told his followers to get them swords if they needed them.

Click to expand...

When David was king of Israel as God's people (1077-1037 B.C.E), these had enemies, such as the Philistines, Amalekites, and Edomites in which warfare was permitted by Jehovah God.(1 Sam 13:3; 2 Sam 1:1; 8:13)

Thus, David could write that God "is teaching my hands for warfare."(Ps 18:34) These nations of the land of Canaan, along with others, were to be eradicated, to avoid their false religious beliefs and attitudes from infecting the Israelites like a dangerous plague.(Deut 7:1)

However, upon the arrival of Jesus as the Christ in 29 C.E., no longer were the Israelites at war with these nations. Along with the old Mosaic Law covenant that was to be replaced with a "new covenant" (Luke 22:19, 20; Col 2:14), so was the idea or attitude of fleshly war with God's enemies.

Jesus now said that the one identifying mark of a true Christian would be genuine love, saying to his eleven faithful apostles, that "I am giving you a new commandment, that you love one another....By this all will know that you are my disciples, if you have love among yourselves."(John 13:35)

Thus, love is the identifying mark of a true Christian. As a result, the apostle Paul wrote that "love does not work evil to one's neighbor; therefore love is the law's fulfillment".(Rom 13:10)

He further said that "though we walk in the flesh, we do not wage warfare according to what we are in the flesh. For the weapons of our warfare are not fleshly, but powerful by God for overturning strongly entrenched things. For we are overturning reasonings and every lofty thing raised up against the knowledge of God; and we are bringing every thought into captivity to make it obedient to the Christ."(2 Cor 10:3-5)

The expression "we do not wage warfare" is literally "we are not doing military service.” (Greek, ou . . . stra·teu·o´me·tha; Latin, non . . . mi·li·ta´mus) Hence, a true Christian now wars against "every lofty thing raised up against the knowledge of God", cutting away false religion and exposing it as against God, as Jesus did.(Matt 15:3-9)

In his book The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, Edward Gibbon ( Vol. I, p. 416) says that "While they [the Christians] inculcated the maxims of passive obedience, they refused to take any active part in the civil administration or the military defence of the empire. . . . It was impossible that the Christians, without renouncing a more sacred duty, could assume the character of soldiers, of magistrates, or of princes."

And of the reason why Jesus told Peter to acquire a sword (Luke 22:36) was in order to fulfill Isaiah 53:12 in which Jesus said, quoting from Isaiah 53:12: "For I tell you that this which is written must be accomplished in me, namely, ' And he was reckoned with lawless ones.' For that which concerns me is having an accomplishment."(Luke 22:37) Verse 38 says that "then they (his apostles) said" "Lord, look ! here are two swords." He said to them: "It is enough."

he-man said:

G3162 μάχαιρα machaira
Probably feminine of a presumed derivative of G3163; a knife, that is, dirk; figuratively war, judicial punishment: - sword.
Hardly enough to hold back a LARGE crowd!
Mr 14:43 And at once as he was speaking, Judas, one of the Twelve, came from the High Priest, the teachers of the law, and the elders and brought with him a crowd with daggers and planks.

and with him a great multitude
Mark 14:43 (KJV)
and with him a great multitude
Mark 14:43 (WesleyNT)
and with him a great crowd
Mark 14:43 (Darby)
and with him a great multitude,
Mark 14:43 (YLT)
Pacifism PEACEMAKING, conscientious objection(s), passive resistance, peace-mongering, non-violence. Pacifism is the opposition to war or violence as a means of settling disputes or gaining advantage. ..calls for the abolition of the institutions of the military and war, opposition to any organization of society through governmental force and opposition to violence under any circumstance, even defense of self and others.
Oxford University Press, 2004

Praise for pacifism:
reserving themselves for the more Divine and more needful service of the Church of God

"The many early Christians accepted the injunctions of the Sermon on the Mount quite literally is certain and their attitude brought them into much the same kind of conflict with the Roman authorities which conscientious objectors of our own time face in dealing with the military authority. ​

G.C. Macgregor (The New Testament Basis of Pacifism) points out that ‘until about the close of the third quarter of the second century the attitude of the church was quite consistently pacifist.’

Harnack’s conclusion is that no Christian would become a soldier after baptism at least up to the time of Marcus Aurelius, say about A.D. 170 (Militia Christi, p.4). After that time signs of compromise became increasingly evident, but the pacifist trend continues strong right up into the fourth century." Encyclopedia Britanica, Vol. 17, p. 20B​

Click to expand...

Probabal--no certain.

And no they could not defend themselves against a large enough force, but who can? (though I am sure legions of angels could aid them had Christ so wished)

So what is your answer? I see you are against service in armies. But what of self defense?

armyman_83 said:

"Blessed be the LORD my strength, which teacheth my hands to war and my fingers to fight."--Ps. 144:1

Christ told Peter to put up his sword, not throw it away.

Christ told his followers to get them swords if they needed them.

Click to expand...

There's an abyssal distance between this, and putting yourself under complete obedience to the army, which is not at all guaranteed to always fight on the right side, for the right purposes, and by the right means.