Let me preface this by stating that I am not trying to be offensive or judgmental- this is just something I’ve wondered about. Also, I am not a peacenik- I firmly believe in the necessity of a strong military for national security and the protection of liberties- but I’m not a Christian.
When the premise of Christianity seems to be “turn the other cheek” and “love those who hate you”, how do devout Christians justify joining an organization that is, first and foremost, an organization designed to inflict massive harm if and when necessary upon enemies? I know that many Christian sects (Amish, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Quakers) do have ethical issues with this and many individual Christians have claimed conscientious objector status (most notably perhaps Alvin York), and I can understand how a devout Christian might find it more evil to abstain from service in such cases as World War II, but how does one justify joining the service during peacetime knowing that they may be deployed against a non-Hitler?
I think the main problem that your question deals with is that of practical use of religion, meaning how people actually use the teachings of a great religious discipline.
Religions, in their pristine form (meaning stripped of their organized religious baggage) ALL are metaphorical lessons in how to transform Self from, essentially, selfishness into compassion. The help one move beyond the profane into the sacred, and all that entails.
The problem is that that takes a lot of discipline and work. Most people don’t want to do that. It is hard. It takes personal risk.
So what they do instead is turn that religious focus from Self and point it at Others. Ahhh, much easier and fun to try and change others!
So goes the last 4000 years of war in the face of ‘love thy neighbor’.
Also the power of Real Estate is stronger than that of God.
They changed one of the commandments (kill to murder).
They picked a phrase out of the bible (eye for an eye) and changed from an admonition to a recommendation.
The crusades.
Missions.
Etc, etc, etc.
Peace,
mangeorge (Not a christian either)
Actually, I was under the impression it was the other way around. It was originally “murder” and somehow got translated as “kill”.
There’s also this little ditty
Then said he unto them, But now he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.
-Luke 22:36
Some Christians, along with members of other religions, describe themselves as conscientious objecters. Depending on the laws of the land, this can result in punishment from civil authorities.
Does this mean that anyone who does claim to be religious is a hypocrite for joining the armed forces of their country? I couldn’t say. I believe it’s up to a person’s conscience. Tricky thing, that.
Hmmm… on looking at my post, I see it is pointless.
The point I was trying to make was that a person’s conscience is what ultimately makes the descision for them, whether they are Christian or not.
Cassius Clay went to jail rather than join the armed forces. He isn’t a Christian, right?
Some Christians saw the evils of NAZI Germany as worth the fight, thus incorporating the demands of world war within their Christian beliefs. Again, imo, conscience.
So, to some, it seems that if the cause for war is great enough, it fits in with their Christian morality.
On the other hand, some people are Christian in name only, not really having a strong belief system, or making up their own rules, as it were. Ever know a Christian to cheat on his taxes? I’ve seen it. Would truly devout do so? No ( again, imho).
Even from the beginnings of Christianity there were Christian soldiers. Instead of assigning hypocrisy to them a little context might be useful. Christians are all for “turning the other cheek” PERSONALLY, i.e. I turn my own cheek, but I have to help my neighbour who’s having the crap beaten out of him.
Turning the other cheek doesn’t mean staying motionless until they kill you.
There are two cases were soldiers speak in the Gospels to the “good” guys.
John the Baptist. A soldier says “what to I need to do to be saved”. John says “don’t be a bully, don’t take bribes, be content with your pay” he doesn’t say “quit”.
Jesus. The centurion who wants his servant cured. Jesus says “I haven’t seen faith like this” and the guy is a ROMAN soldier.
Some of them may not regard the military primarily as an organization “designed to inflict massive harm.”
Regardless, I read a discussion board primarily populated by military and former military, and there are some very devout (and fundamentalist) Christians there. They’ve certainly reconciled whatever you and I may see as contradictions. I will also note that (by my observation) many of them focus less on the “turn the other cheek” parts of the Bible and seem a lot more enamored of the “righteous men carrying out God’s wrath” aspects.
Not true. Could you please tell us when and how this occurred? The original Hebrew is most accurately translated as “Thou shalt not murder.”
Another falsehood. The Mosaic Law prescribed “an eye for an eye” as a limit to the amount of punishment which the Hebrew government could exact. The Pharisees perverted that rule, choosing to make it a guideline for personal vengeance. In his famous Sermon on the Mount, Jesus set the record straight, thereby rebuking the Pharisees for perverting the original meaning.
Y’know… just as you have perverted what actually occurred.
A travesty which falls firmly at the feet of the Catholic Church. Not something which Christendom in general should be blamed for.
And what’s wrong with that? How do misions constitute a violation of Biblical teaching? If anything, they are a fulfillment of the command to go forth and make disciples of all nations (Matthew 28:20)!
“Et cetera”? You mean there are more false accusations in store?
Yes, yes. It has become popular of late to claim that translation. All the time I was growing up, though, it was popularly “kill”. Now that we wish to justify ourselves it’s going back to “murder”.
Please tell me, with a straight face, that the phrase isn’t almost universally used to justify revenge, (including the DP) even from the pulpit.
Catholics are christians, and there are a lot of them. Can’t just ignore them, can we?
Again, the RCC. Mexico, California, etc?
More? You need to establish at least one before you can claim “more”.
Now that statement begs explanation. :dubious:
Peace,
mangeorge
I have to ask myself if Jesus would have signed up for military duty and killed anyone. I don’t think so. That’s my opinion. I am satisfied that some people can find Biblical scriptures to justify almost anything that they want to and killing is probably one of them. But when I look at the teachings as a whole, I think he would have been opposed to war and very much in favor of changing the conditions that lead to war
That’s an interesting viewpoint, but it’s purely speculative. Jesus did not condemn military service, nor did he issue any commandments which explicitly prohibited it. In fact, as Rodrigo pointed out, he failed to condemn military service when given the chance. All the evidence therefore indicates that he did not consider military service to be inherently evil.
Probably so, but that does not mean that he would have opposed military service as well. I suspect that there are a good many military officials who are opposed to war, except as an absolute last resort.
I’m absolutely shocked at those posters who claim that the military’s primary purpose is “to inflict harm.” It isn’t. Their purpose is to enforce the peace and defend the innocent. This will often, but not necessarily, require inflicting harm, so as to prevent further loss of life and property. In other words, violence is the occassional means to an end, not the end it itself.
That’s because the King James Version rendered it in the more general sense as “kill.” As several of our Jewish friends of the SDMB can attest, the commandment itself, in the original Hebrew, means “murder.” Christians did NOT change the commandment to render it in that manner, since that’s what the original Hebrew says!
It IS used to justify revenge – by those who deliberately misuse it. In other words, by those who choose to pervert its original meaning. Such revenge is NOT what Christianity or the Bible teaches, despite all your accusations.
And I’m not. In fact, I firmly and explicitly blamed the Roman Catholic Church for the Crusades. It is, however, factually wrong to blame Christianity for the Crusades, since this atrocity was committed by only one faction within the entirety of Christendom – a faction whose teachings I routinely condemn, by the way. That would be like condemning all blacks in Harlem for the violent acts committed by a subset of their number. It is simply a false generalization.
You didn’t answer my question. How are missions inherently in violation of the Biblical laws? There are those who used “missions” for their own evil purposes (e.g. the Catholic Church), but this does not mean that missions themselves are inherently in violation of Biblical teachings.
I established several, and in your reply, you introduced further falsehoods. In other words, you did not disappoint. Bravo.
It requires no explanation. Your posting was overflowing with twisted facts and false accusations – and your reply kept adding to the mix. As I said, falsehood, not peace.
**“Now?” If this is a new and novel translation, how is it that Christians have been serving in militaries for two millennia? The verse has
**OK. My Father, Brother and Uncle are Southern Baptist ministers. I went to Bible College. I have never, EVER, heard that verse used as justification for revenge. It is used specifically in the opposite way: that that was what the Old Testment taught, but that now, following Christ, we are to forgive. “‘Vengeance is mine,’ saith the Lord” and all that.
Has that always been the case? No; the Crusades happened in part because they were eager to see themselves as God’s instruments for vengeance. But it that is not what Christians have believed or the way they have interpreted scripture for many centuries.
**To paraphrase a movie, sometimes war is upon you whether you oppose it or not. No sane doctor “supports” surgery for the sheer hell of it; she’d much rather change the conditions that lead to it. But sometimes there’s no choice.
As to the OP: you may want to look up “Just War” theory; it’s a very old debate within Christendom as to when war and military service is justified. This seems like one thoughtful answer to the question:
I think Zoe summs up my own conviction when I was younger.
I asked myself, “What woudl Jesus do?”
And the answer is simple, to me atleast, he would be opposed to war, opposed to the death penalty.
I mean after reading his teachings I can’t see how ANYONE could come to a different conclusion.
And again, I’m with Zoe when she says that it appears anyone could pull a quote out of the bible to justify just about anything. But when looking at his teachings as a whole the message is quite clear.
Ofcourse when I was young and tried to bring this to the attention of another christian the usual answer I would receive is: “Well,. I’m not Jesus”…
Unfortunately, it is simply not true that to be Christian means to be pacifist. Some are, but the vast majority, through out history, and in the present day, are not.
Those who think Jesus completely eschewed conflict are simply guilty of selective reading. This is the man who drove money changers out of the temple with a whip of cords, and who blessed the Roman soldier (as others in this thread have said).
If you believe otherwise, that is your belief; however, you must also face the fact that others, down through the ages, have indeed come to the opposite belief, and been believing Christians, saints of the Church. Joan of Arc, St. Patrick, many others are “warrior saints”, even leaving out the Kings of Israel.
It is certainly possible to venerate St. Joan and St. Francis both, and to recognize there is a time for war and a time for peace, and to say “blessed are the peacemakers” as well as “I bring not peace, but the sword.” Circumstances change things.
What would Jesus do? When I ask that, the almost universal reply I get is, “Jesus wouldn’t get in this damn fool situation in the first place.” Given that, I do my poor best.
Ugh… in case you haven’t noticed, enforcing the peace and defending the innocent (subjective term at best) is usually done through inflicting major harm or the real and present threat of same. I don’t view the U.S. or most other militaries as mindless Orc-like killing-squads, but let’s not delude ourselves- you learn how to kill in a large variety of ways long before you go to fork, knife and spoon classes.
