Christians & Violence

[expos4ever]

Christians are NEVER permitted by Jesus to engage in "violence". But be VERY careful of what violence is and is not. IE: When the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941; THAT was "violence" in no uncertain terms.

On the other hand; when Harry Truman gave the decree to drop the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945; THAT was NOT violence. That was a righteous act in the eyes of Jesus (God* manifest IN the flesh).

Wow. I am quite sure you will not be able to actually support this distinction. More specifically, even though we agree the attack on Pearl Harbour was an "act of violence" it certainly does not follow that vaporizing tens of thousands of innocent Japanese civilians was not.

 

[he-man]

i
Certainly God has the power to protect us from violence. However, over and over again in the scriptures for His own higher purposes either He has chosen to not protect His disciples (the Apostles were all martyred but John), or, as in with the Hebrews, He has commanded His people to fight and kill.

God wants His people to PARTICIPATE in His divine plan to conquer evil and to usher in His Kingdom. He does not want us to be babies sitting on the sidelines.

Hmmn... But God always lead the way for the Hebrews and they did not do violence without His command. Jesus also commands us obey and to not be of this world and to wait for his return as commander
John 18:36 Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.
He very clearly states what we should do:
Romans 12:20 Therefore if thine enemy hunger, feed him; if he thirst, give him drink: for in so doing thou shalt heap coals of fire on his head.
James 4:4 Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God.
Matthew 5:38 Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: 39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.
Quite the contrary we should resist no one: Romans 13:2 Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.
I f you wish to inherit the Kingdom the I advise you: Galatians 5:21 Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.
Need I remind you: 1 Peter 2:23 Who, when he was reviled, reviled not again; when he suffered, he threatened not; but committed himself to Him that judgeth righteously: Why? because you cannot serve God and men:
Acts 5:29 Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men.
Who killed Jesus?
Acts 5:29 30 The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom ye (Roman Army, the elders and chief priests and scribes, ) slew and hanged on a tree.

 

[he-man]

No one is righteous but Jesus Christ. So ...
(1) all of us deserve to die, and (2) none of us are qualified to judge anyone else. As both the OT and 2000 years of Christian history indicate, we must be discerning, careful, and let the Word and Spirit lead. When it comes to this difficult issue, we cannot presume what the Lord's will is in any particular situation.

Well, if you can't do that then how are you able to believe what Jesus said as historians report?
"A very interesting sidelight is cast on the attitude of the early Christians to war by the serious view they took of those precepts of the Master enjoining love for all, including enemies, and forbidding retaliation upon the wrongdoer, and the close and literal way in which they endeavored to obey them. This view and this obedience of those first followers of Jesus are the best commentary we can have upon the problematic teaching in question, and the best answer we can give to those who argue that it was not meant to be practiced save in a perfect society , or that it refers only to the inner disposition of the heart and not to the outward actions, or that it concerns only personal and private and not the social and political relationship of life."
But if they wish to be baptized in the Lord, let them cease from military service or from the post of authority, and if not let them not be received. Let a catechumen or a believer of the people, if he desire to be a soldier, either cease from his intention, or if not let him be rejected. For he hath despised God by his thought, and leaving the things of the Spirit, he hath perfected himself in the flesh, and hath treated the faith with contempt."
Church’s Rise to Secular Power Led to Moral Laxity, a Disregard for Original Bible Truths, and Abandonment of Early Principles. Pacifist Principles Retained Only by Religious Minorities after Third Century A.D.
"The rise of Christianity led to a rapid growth of conscientious objection. Accordingly to A. Harnack, C.J. Cadoux, and G.J. Herring, the most eminent students of the problem, few if any Christians served in the Roman Army during the first century and a half A.D.; and even in the third century there were Christian conscientious objectors."
"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."
"For many years many Christian regarded services in the army as inconsistent with their profession. Some held that for them all bloodshed, whether as soldiers or executioners, was unlawful."
"During a considerable period after the death of Christ, it is certain...that his followers believed He had forbidden war, and that, in consequence of this belief many of them refused to engage in it, whatever were the consequences, whether reproach, or imprisonment, or death. These facts are indisputable: ‘It is easy,’ says a learned writer of the 17th century, ‘to obscure the sun at midday, as to deny that the primitive Christian renounced all revenge and war.’ Of all Christian writers of the second century, there is not one who notices the subject, who does not hold it to be unlawful for a Christian to bear arms."
"Christ and his apostles delivered general precepts for the regulation of our conduct. It was necessary for their successors to apply them to their practice in life. And to what did they apply the pacific precepts which had been delivered? They applied them to war; they were assured that the precepts absolutely forbade it. This belief they derived from those very precepts on which we have insisted: They referred, expressly, to the same passages in the New Testament, and from the authority and obligation of those passages, they refused to bear arms. A few examples from their history will show with what undoubting confidence they believed in the unlawfulness of war, and how much they were willing to suffer in the cause of peace."
[The Early Christian View of War and Military Service]

 

[JoeP222w]

This reasoning is used often but it has a problem. To say that God does not change does not logically imply that this his "rules for us" or, more generally, the way he wants us to live, has not changed.

The phrase I used "God does not change" certainly need qualification. Perhaps I should have stated how God does not change, that is true. The way in which God does not change I was referring to was His character, nature and attributes. Likewise, God's moral standard is perfect and does not change. The Moral Law from the Old Testament remains the same (you shall not murder, you shall not steal, you shall not worship false gods, you shall not commit adultery, etc). The Ceremonial and Dietary Laws have changed but that has no effect on God's immutability.

People seem to think that Scripture is a set of timeless truths. This is not really correct - it is an evolving narrative. Surely you would agree that there is something "new" about the New Covenant! Yet the reasoning you appear to use (above) would suggest otherwise.

I disagree in the sense you are referring to. Scripture is a set of timeless truths. Our knowledge and understanding of scripture is what changes, but the underlying truth does not change or evolve. God's righteousness, justice, grace and mercy is no different from the moment Adam and Eve first sinned until today. That is not evolving.

The Temple was central to the Old Testament. Yet, Jesus clearly suggests that He (Jesus) replaces the Temple. So in a very direct sense, Jesus Himself overturns a key component of the Old Testament "system".

The Temple was a foreshadowing of what was to come. Jesus did not redefine the Temple, but changed our understanding of the Temple.

 

[expos4ever]

The Moral Law from the Old Testament remains the same (you shall not murder, you shall not steal, you shall not worship false gods, you shall not commit adultery, etc). The Ceremonial and Dietary Laws have changed but that has no effect on God's immutability.

I do not see any Biblical support for this position - nowhere in the Old or New Testaments is there any "splitting" of the Law of Moses into a "moral" and a "ceremonial" part. And Paul (and Jesus too) clearly announce the end of the Law of Moses. More to the point, in Romans 7 Paul clearly identifies one of the 10 commandments as part of the "letter of the law" that has passed away.

I see no Biblical evidence at all for retention of the "Moral Law". Of course, as already shown, we are not bereft of moral guidance - we have the Spirit (again, see Romans 7).

 

[he-man]

i
Certainly God has the power to protect us from violence. However, over and over again in the scriptures for His own higher purposes either He has chosen to not protect His disciples (the Apostles were all martyred but John), or, as in with the Hebrews, He has commanded His people to fight and kill.
God wants His people to PARTICIPATE in His divine plan to conquer evil and to usher in His Kingdom. He does not want us to be babies sitting on the sidelines.

His divine PLAN to conquer evil and to usher in His Kingdom does not start until after the Return of Jesus Christ.
John 18:36 Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.
John 2:15 Do not love the world or the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him. (16) For all that is in the world—the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life—is not of the Father but is of the world. (17) And the world is passing away, and the lust of it; but he who does the will of God abides forever. Cosmos identifies the system on earth established apart from the Creator God.
2CO 4:3 But even if our gospel is hidden, it is hidden to those who are perishing,4 In whom such as the God of eternity has stricken blind the senses of the unbelieving ones, that not should shine unto them the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the figure of God.
Romans 11:8-10: God HATH GIVEN THEM THE SPIRIT of SLUMBER, EYES that they SHOULD not SEE, and EARS that they SHOULD not HEAR; let their EYES be DARKENED, in the same circumstances of willful rebellion and obstinate unbelief; and the great God of heaven and earth is he who judicially blinds their eyes; makes their hearts fat, i.e. stupid; gives them the spirit of slumber: and bows down their back, apostle means the true God by the words the god of this world; that by the God of this world the supreme Being is meant, who in his judgment gave over the minds of the unbelieving Jews to spiritual darkness, so that destruction came upon them to the uttermost; of THIS WORLD, means simply mankind at large in their state of probation in this lower world, in opposition to their state in the world to come. The same meaning the word has in several other places, to which l need not refer; it simply implying the present state of things, governed by the Divine providence, in contradistinction from the eternal state: and it is very remarkable that, in 1 Timothy 1:17, God himself is called τω δε βασιλει των αιωνων, the King of the WORLD; what we call King eternal; but here it evidently means him who governs both worlds, and rules in time and eternity.
Some, and particularly the ancient fathers, have connected and have read the verse: But God hath blinded the minds of the unbelievers of this world, Theophylact, and Augustine, all plead for the above meaning; and St. Augustine says that it was the opinion of almost all the ancients The Adam Clarke Commentary
http://www.studylight.org/com/acc/view.cgi?book=2co&chapter=004
Romans 1:28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; Who will suffer an Everlasting penalty Matthew 25:46
Since men will not seek out and obey the true God on their own, the best they can do in regard to a standard of values is their own experience, and that has produced this perverted and violent world. John W. Ritenbaugh
"The rise of Christianity led to a rapid growth of conscientious objection. Accordingly to A. Harnack, C.J. Cadoux, and G.J. Herring, the most eminent students of the problem, few if any Christians served in the Roman Army during the first century and a half A.D.; and even in the third century there were Christian conscientious objectors."
Ro 1:2 And do not be conformed to this world, but be metamorphosed by making known in your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God. Psalm 126:1-2 When the Lord restored the fortunes of Zion, we were like those who dreamed. Our mouths were filled with laughter, our tongues with songs of joy. Then it was said among the nations, “The Lord has done great things for them.”

 

[real tree]

The militaristic and violent attitudes of many Christians today are shocking, to say the least. The words embarrassing, dangerous, ignorant, faithless, and worldly are some of the other terms that come to mind.

Those who seek a Christian model for the appropriate use of violence try to rationalize a compromise between the demands of Christ and the demands of the world, to work out an agreeable resolve, and to balance all conflicting factors that will produce a comfortable harmonious order. They relish the hope that the various elements involved can be brought into harmony. They forget that this is the world that has absolutely rejected Jesus Christ, that there can be no harmony between the values, the constitutions, or the peace efforts of this world and Christ.

Violence is the natural condition of humanity; it is part of the order of the fall. Violence in its various forms has nothing to do with freedom, but much to do with necessity. In other words, violence is a kind of trap that draws us into its snare and imposes itself on our lives, that pressures us to participate in it and continue it.

But as hopeless and pessimistic as all of that sounds, the necessity of violence for the individual is not the last word; we are not absolutely destined to be a fatality. It is possible to resist violence. It cannot be eliminated from a fallen world but it is important to try to lessen its impacts, address and improve, where possible, the conditions that generate it, and to heal and comfort those suffering from it. The world of violence will exist even if we do everything to resist it, but still we are to overcome evil with good.

Military action is sometimes authorised
For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, for he is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer. (Romans 13:3-4)

 

[Caretaker]

Military action is sometimes authorised
For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, for he is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer. (Romans 13:3-4)

You wrote, "Military action is sometimes authorized", but doesn't the action in the passage you cited, Romans 13:3-4, sound more like what we today would call what the policemen do, i.e., deal with individuals who break the law?

You skipped over the preceding verses that DO deal with "military action" - by prohibiting it:

"Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2 Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves." -- Romans 13:1-2

In the above two verses we see that if any country, government, group, or individual attacks a country or government, the country doing the attacking is "rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves".

So, no: "military action" as we understand it today - that is, one country making war on another - is never "authorized" by God, but instead is strictly prohibited by God.

God does support the APPROPRIATE use of police to deal with individuals who cheat, steal, and do violence to others. But even here, the full weight of the Gospel holds sway. That is, the use of force MUST be redemptive in nature (not retributive in nature), intended to return the individual to right living, governed by God's principles of justice (not man's), and above all imbued with God's mercy.

Vengeance (i.e., retribution), on the other hand, NEVER lies in the human domain to administer: "Vengeance is mine, I will repay", saith the Lord -- Romans 12:19.

 

[dqhall]

Military action is sometimes authorised
For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, for he is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer. (Romans 13:3-4)

According to Christian history and tradition, the terrible emperor Nero used his military power to cut off Paul's head. Nero was a cross dresser who executed many Christians after blaming them for starting a fire that destroyed part of Rome. Not all rulers do good and reject evil.

 

[Tull]

We live in the most "merciful" time in human history in regard to criminals and crime,the same can't be said for their victims,and we have the society we deserve for our efforts.

 

[Caretaker]

We live in the most "merciful" time in human history in regard to criminals and crime,the same can't be said for their victims,and we have the society we deserve for our efforts.

I would agree that God has allowed us to reap the consequences of what we have sown in terms of our behavior - behavior which embodies selfishness, greed, brutality, lack of concern or caring for what our country is doing militarily and covertly oversees, failure to control the brutal behavior of our police toward those they are supposed to "serve and protect", lack of concern for those wrongly convicted of crimes, failure to effectively oppose the control of our government by a wealthy few who exploit and oppress the 99% for their personal gain, etc.

 

[Tull]

I would agree that God has allowed us to reap the consequences of what we have sown in terms of our behavior - behavior which embodies selfishness, greed, brutality, lack of concern or caring

Which includes common criminals

for what our country is doing militarily and covertly oversees,

Or gangs of thugs just across town

failure to control the brutal behavior of our police toward those they are supposed to "serve and protect", lack

The police are not here to protect and serve criminals,when you commit a crime or refuse to submit to legal authority you have placed yourself in the position of being without protection and the first priority is your victim or potential victim

lack of concern for those wrongly convicted of crimes,

And failure to convict and properly punish those who have commited crimes

the control of our government by a wealthy few who exploit and oppress the 99% for their personal gain, etc.

Government by definition is strong,the poor have never ruled the rich and never will in this world,the poor are no more virtuous or moral than the rich they just have fewer opportunities but are perfectly capable of inflicting pain and death on their fellow man....no one is innocent because they are poor or rich or guilty because they are poor or rich but each is guilty or innocent of crime by what they do or do not do.....crime is sin and James 1:14 explains why we sin with no mention of money or lack thereof,race,education or any other man made additions or excuses.

 

[he-man]

Military action is sometimes authorised
For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, for he is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer. (Romans 13:3-4)

Read the WHOLE thing and then think about it.!
Romans 13:1 Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.
2 Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.
3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:
4 For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God's revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil
9 For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
Daniel 4:17
This matter is by the decree of the watchers, and the demand by the word of the holy ones: to the intent that the living may know that the most High ruleth in the kingdom of men, and giveth it to whomsoever he will, and setteth up over it the basest of men.
New Living Translation
But Peter and the apostles replied, "We must obey God rather than any human authority.
English Standard Version
in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’
The Early Christian View of War and Military Service
1. THE DIDASKALIA
"The Didaskalia forbids the acceptance of money for the church ‘from soldiers who behave unrighteously or from those who kill men or from executioners or from any (of the) magistrates of the Roman Empire who are polluted in wars and have shed innocent blood without judgment,’ etc."
D. Example of Early Christian Believers
"No Christian (from 70-110 A.D.)...would voluntarily become a soldier after conversion: He would be deterred from doing so, not only by fear of contamination by idolatry, [worshipping a King as ruler] but also by a natural reluctance-and doubtless in many cases by a conscientious objection to using arms."
Harnack: "The position of a soldier would seem to be still more incompatible with Christianity than the higher offices of state, for Christianity prohibited on principle both war and bloodshed...We shall see that the Christian ethic forbade war absolutely (uberhaupt) to the Christians...Had not Jesus forbidden all revenge, even all retaliation for wrong, and taught complete gentleness and patience? And was not he military calling moreover contemptible on account of its extortions, acts of violence, and police service? Certainly: and from that it followed without question, that a Christian might not of free will become a soldier."
"Shortly before the siege of Jerusalem by the Romans, the Christians of that city, in obedience to ‘an oracular response given by revelation to approved men there’ left Jerusalem, and settled at Pella in Peraea, thus taking no part in the war against Rome."
Christians during this second revolt of the Jews against Rome is afforded by ancient scroll and manuscript findings discovered since 1947 in the Holy Land.
A freshly translated letter written by Simon ben Kasebam leader of a Holy Land revolt from A.D. 132-135, refers to a group of ‘neutralists’ in the war between Rome and Jewish insurgents. They are called ‘Galileans,’ and conceivably may be Christians."
(Rev 19:19) for when Christ is our Captain, then we will fight (2Ti 2:3) Joh 18:36 Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight
Christ condemned wars and not only unrestrained aggression (Matt. 26:52). But not to return evil for evil (1Pe 3:9 Not rendering evil for evil, or railing for railing: but contrariwise blessing; knowing that ye are thereunto called, that ye should inherit a blessing. (Christ had in fact commanded soldiers to do violence to no one and not to be warring or entangleing themselves with the affairs of this life but to endure hardness, as a good soldier of Jesus Christ (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 salt suffice. 2Ti 2:3 Thou therefore endure hardness, as a good soldier of Jesus Christ. 4 No man that warreth entangleth himself with the affairs of this life; that he may please him who hath chosen him to be a soldier.)
And in John's vision, Christ is depicted as leading armies and waging war against all the Presidents of the Earth, for the cause of righteousness (Rev 19:19 And I saw the beast, the kings of the earth, and their armies, gathered together to make war against him that sat on the horse, and against his army. ).
[size=4The biblical rules of war require that Christ be the leader before attacking any enemy forces for those who delight in war are destined to be destroyed (Psa. 68:30).
War is not to be undertaken but by the will of God and with our Captain, Jesus Christ. 2Th 1:6 [/size]

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. The Catechism is at pains to stress the moral illegitimacy of all of these:
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. In these situations though the act (dropping bombs) was not intrinsically evil and though it is arguable that in the long run more lives were saved than lost, the second condition was violated because the death of innocents was used as a means to achieve the good of the war's end.
[Just War Doctrine]

 

[Caretaker]

Which includes common criminals


Or gangs of thugs just across town


The police are not here to protect and serve criminals,when you commit a crime or refuse to submit to legal authority you have placed yourself in the position of being without protection and the first priority is your victim or potential victim

And failure to convict and properly punish those who have commited crimes

Government by definition is strong,the poor have never ruled the rich and never will in this world,the poor are no more virtuous or moral than the rich they just have fewer opportunities but are perfectly capable of inflicting pain and death on their fellow man....no one is innocent because they are poor or rich or guilty because they are poor or rich but each is guilty or innocent of crime by what they do or do not do.....crime is sin and James 1:14 explains why we sin with no mention of money or lack thereof,race,education or any other man made additions or excuses.

You don't seem to be writing from a Christian perspective, at least not as Christian is defined by Christ.

 

[Caretaker]

Read the WHOLE thing and then think about it.!
Romans 13:1 Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.
2 Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.
3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:
4 For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God's revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil
9 For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
Daniel 4:17
This matter is by the decree of the watchers, and the demand by the word of the holy ones: to the intent that the living may know that the most High ruleth in the kingdom of men, and giveth it to whomsoever he will, and setteth up over it the basest of men.
New Living Translation
But Peter and the apostles replied, "We must obey God rather than any human authority.
English Standard Version
in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’
The Early Christian View of War and Military Service
1. THE DIDASKALIA
"The Didaskalia forbids the acceptance of money for the church ‘from soldiers who behave unrighteously or from those who kill men or from executioners or from any (of the) magistrates of the Roman Empire who are polluted in wars and have shed innocent blood without judgment,’ etc."
D. Example of Early Christian Believers
"No Christian (from 70-110 A.D.)...would voluntarily become a soldier after conversion: He would be deterred from doing so, not only by fear of contamination by idolatry, [worshipping a King as ruler] but also by a natural reluctance-and doubtless in many cases by a conscientious objection to using arms."
Harnack: "The position of a soldier would seem to be still more incompatible with Christianity than the higher offices of state, for Christianity prohibited on principle both war and bloodshed...We shall see that the Christian ethic forbade war absolutely (uberhaupt) to the Christians...Had not Jesus forbidden all revenge, even all retaliation for wrong, and taught complete gentleness and patience? And was not he military calling moreover contemptible on account of its extortions, acts of violence, and police service? Certainly: and from that it followed without question, that a Christian might not of free will become a soldier."
"Shortly before the siege of Jerusalem by the Romans, the Christians of that city, in obedience to ‘an oracular response given by revelation to approved men there’ left Jerusalem, and settled at Pella in Peraea, thus taking no part in the war against Rome."
Christians during this second revolt of the Jews against Rome is afforded by ancient scroll and manuscript findings discovered since 1947 in the Holy Land.
A freshly translated letter written by Simon ben Kasebam leader of a Holy Land revolt from A.D. 132-135, refers to a group of ‘neutralists’ in the war between Rome and Jewish insurgents. They are called ‘Galileans,’ and conceivably may be Christians."
(Rev 19:19) for when Christ is our Captain, then we will fight (2Ti 2:3) Joh 18:36 Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight
Christ condemned wars and not only unrestrained aggression (Matt. 26:52). But not to return evil for evil (1Pe 3:9 Not rendering evil for evil, or railing for railing: but contrariwise blessing; knowing that ye are thereunto called, that ye should inherit a blessing. (Christ had in fact commanded soldiers to do violence to no one and not to be warring or entangleing themselves with the affairs of this life but to endure hardness, as a good soldier of Jesus Christ (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 salt suffice. 2Ti 2:3 Thou therefore endure hardness, as a good soldier of Jesus Christ. 4 No man that warreth entangleth himself with the affairs of this life; that he may please him who hath chosen him to be a soldier.)
And in John's vision, Christ is depicted as leading armies and waging war against all the Presidents of the Earth, for the cause of righteousness (Rev 19:19 And I saw the beast, the kings of the earth, and their armies, gathered together to make war against him that sat on the horse, and against his army. ).
[size=4The biblical rules of war require that Christ be the leader before attacking any enemy forces for those who delight in war are destined to be destroyed (Psa. 68:30).
War is not to be undertaken but by the will of God and with our Captain, Jesus Christ. 2Th 1:6 [/size]

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. The Catechism is at pains to stress the moral illegitimacy of all of these:
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. In these situations though the act (dropping bombs) was not intrinsically evil and though it is arguable that in the long run more lives were saved than lost, the second condition was violated because the death of innocents was used as a means to achieve the good of the war's end.
[Just War Doctrine]

Good post.

I will note, however, that virtually all military leaders at the time said that the use of nuclear weapons by the United States was completely unnecessary. So, no - it did not save lives.

 

[Tull]

I will note, however, that virtually all military leaders at the time said that the use of nuclear weapons by the United States was completely unnecessary. So, no - it did not save lives.

It saved the lives of those that would have been lost had the fighting continued

 

[Tull]

You don't seem to be writing from a Christian perspective, at least not as Christian is defined by Christ.

Realy,why is that ? because I point out that individuals are responsible for their actions ? or because I point out that officers of the law are for the protection of the innocent ? or perhaps its because I reject the notion that sin is based in economics instead of the spiritual realm ? you write from the perspective of a progressive liberal which is poverty is the ultimate virtue and the weaker side of any conflict is always right.


I am thankful to God for people who are willing to fight evil people and destroy them because we would live in a nightmare of a world without them.

 

[Light of the East]

Good post.

I will note, however, that virtually all military leaders at the time said that the use of nuclear weapons by the United States was completely unnecessary. So, no - it did not save lives.

I am appalled at the number of Christian people who think that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were in any way justified. We have become a country whose first response to anything, anywhere is to reach for the trigger.

Thomas Merton and Dorothy Day would have had a field day in the last 20 years criticizing our lying, inept, bumbling leaders who started wars for profit.

 

[Light of the East]

It saved the lives of those that would have been lost had the fighting continued

Japan was trying to surrender. They had realized their defeat for several months. Truman wanted to make an example of them in order to make the Russians understand that we are the USA and you don't mess with us.

 

[Light of the East]

I am thankful to God for people who are willing to fight evil people and destroy them because we would live in a nightmare of a world without them.

Yeah, just don't forget that an awful lot of the "evil" that we are called upon to fight is caused by "false flag" covert operations designed to get us mad so we will urge our leaders to "bomb the living hell out of them."

You know....Bush and his lies about 9/11. Going after Saddam because he was no longer our little brown pet as he had been. Killing Kaddafi in the name of "freedom," even though he kept all sides in his country from killing each other.

Or was it that Kaddafi had the nerve to stop using the American petrol dollar as his economic mainstay? You do realize, don't you, that we are being led around by the nose and kept in darkness by those who have a vested interest in making as much money as they can in any way they can, including a nice, profitable war.