Hmmm, there was more to my post that doesn’t seem to have made it through.
Churches that I have attended have placed the teachings of Jesus at a very low priority, far below the judgmental teachings of Paul and the particular parts of the OT that allow them to feel superior to others. The teachings of Jesus seem to be an inconvenience to be explained away, as has been demonstrated by other responses in this thread. Christians seem to me to be very quick to get Jesus crucified so he can’t open his mouth, and then continue with their self-aggrandizement and judging of others.
A soldier can’t be expected to have all evidence in hand to make the necessary judgment. He needs to trust those that do. If you don’t trust that the government will make the right choice, then you shouldn’t enlist.
I asked a pro-war, ordained Baptist minister about going to war when we are supposed to love our enemies. He said that this war is showing love to the Iraqis because we are bringing them democracy.
And he kept a straight face while he said it too, which just goes to show how good he is at spreading bullshit.
This question is probably as old as Christianity itself. If you really wanted to research all that has been argued on the issue, I imagine you could spend years. Here’s one good article I happened to find online. One key sentence:
“For Augustine and Luther, the Christian soldier is justified in his military service because he is performing an essential service for the good of the society. Properly used, the military protects a sphere of civil life within which a relatively peaceful existence is possible.”
I think many of the justifications revolve around the idea that the Christian soldier is not acting as an individual, but as an instrument of the state (which, ideally, is acting in the interests of justice). And when a soldier is required to kill, his violence is directed, not against an individual “who has done him no harm,” as such, but against the Enemy as a whole.
I don’t want to hijack this thread into a discussion of the Iraq war, but in general, it seems to me that a BS-free argument could be made that military action to overthrow a tyrannical regime and bring freedom and democracy to an oppressed country could be consistent with Christianity.
How many thousands of innocent civilians would have to die before Jesus found it objectionable?
Also, on topic:
Christians invoke the *hypocrite *clause to justify it. The same way catholics use birth control, get abortions, have pre-marital sex and cheat on their spouses. Christians routinely ignore the teachings of their churches when it is inconvenient. And yet they at the same moment expect to go to magic happy land when they die. It’s amazing. If I believed that there was a monstrous psychopath in space that would torture me forever for not following his orders, I’d fucking follow the orders… yet many Christians do just that, ignore the wishes of their god, yet still expect to be rewarded for it.
Also many intellectually weak people inter-mesh patriotism and religion. The government wouldn’t do something unchristian, right?
Why? “Give unto Caesar what is Caesar’s” and the passages about obeying your master show that tyrannical regimes and lack of freedom aren’t looked at with any great stigma (if you’ll excuse the expression) in the Bible. And I don’t think there’s anything about democracy in the Bible. At all. Communism, yes. Democracy, not so much.
Consistent with christianity, maybe. Consistent with the teachings of Jesus, absolutely not. There’s a big difference.
Don’t forget, Jesus lived under a tyrannical regime, arguably much worse than Iraq. Plenty of people wanted to fight the Romans, and Jesus told them not to. When Peter fought the Roman soldier Jesus rebuked him and put the guy’s ear back on. Jesus did not say squat about freedom and democracy.
Your belief that fighting for “freedom” and “democracy” is a christian ideal is a perfect example of the way christianity and patriotism get intertwined in this country. We’re god’s chosen people, the city on the hill, so anything we do is sanctioned by god and any means we use to do it is also A-OK with him. How ridiculous. Find me one thing that Jesus ever said that would lead you to believe that killing people in order to bring other people “freedom” and “democracy” is OK. Find me one time when Jesus even mentioned “democracy.” The idea that christianity=deomcracy is laughable. Look at the beginning of Acts; early christianity was practically communistic.
True. Jesus’s mission was not a political or military one, and he apparently had to convince some people that he wasn’t the political/military messiah they were expecting. I don’t think it’s a necessary conclusion that none of his followers throughout history may ever be engaged in political or military missions.
I have not been presenting my own, personal beliefs in this thread. I have been trying to answer the OP’s question, to explain how some devout Christians justify military service.
I also believe that Christianity and patriotism too often get intertwined in unfortunate ways in this country (and perhaps in others as well).
But I also believe that “freedom” and “democracy” are good things, or at least prefereable to many of the alternatives, and that there is nothing unchristian about wanting people to enjoy their benefits.
Are you equating military service with killing people? How many of those who serve in the military end up killing people?
Finally, someone who can speak for all Christians! This next question should end a whole bunch of debates on this and many other boards, allowing us to move on to other matters: What do Christians believe when it comes to the OP?
:rolleyes: Your own argument was that invading and overthrowing a tyrannical regime ( not that we’re any better for the Iraqis ) by military force could be justified as Christian; that doesn’t involve killing ? What do you think the military does in an invasion, group hugs everyone into submission ?
So all the ones who say that their God will burn or otherwise torture people forever for disobeying are lying about what they believe ?
I would have to know a lot more than I do about what actually was involved in a particular “invading and overthrowing” before I could begin to determine whether it could be justified as Christian.
I really wish some Dopers (Christian or otherwise) who have actually served in the military would weigh in here; I think their perspectives would be valuable.
At the risk of invoking Godwin’s law, I would be hesitant to say that the Christian thing for the Allies to have done in WWII would be to have stayed out of Germany.
I’d hate to be seen to be taking sides, but I’m on Der Trih’s side.
Okay we have to have a military force to protect our interests, but don’t try and justify it with religious dogma. Religion and the Military have no place together in the 21st century.
I can 100% fully guarantee that I speak for Christians in the following: Christians do not believe he is a psychopath. Rather, he is exactly the opposite. Therefore, Lobohan’s post was incorrect and mine was true.
The only thing that can be reasonable said to speak for Christianity as a whole in other matters are the Christian denominations and the theology behind each.
I’ve already posted a link that explains it very well, from a Catholic perspective. I’m not Catholic, but the Protestant view is very similar. Why don’t you try reading it?
Technically I said that if I believed it. Please read the post again.
Actually many christians fear god and do what they do out of not wanting to earn his wrath (that is to say, be tortured forever). Would it be fair to characterize their vision of god as a psychopath? I think so. Would a non-psychopath torture an otherwise good person if he didn’t kneel down and submit to him?
So no, you’re utterly wrong to say you speak for all Christians. Which is silly on the face of it of course, since Christians can’t agree on much when it comes to the details of their particular little cults.
Christian doctrine defines God as being everything exactly opposite of that definition. Therefore, if you believe God is a criminal, perverted, amoral being, then you are by definition not a Christian.
Now, I can already see you readying an index finger for an accusative stab, with the words “No True Scotsman” forming on your lips. I’ll just quickly point out that that the NTS is only applicable to factors that are outside an accepted definition. There is an accepted definition of what Christianity is, and this does explicitly fall outside of it. Feel free to peruse any number of excellent wikipedia articles on Chrisitianity for more details.
An awful lot of “Christian doctrine” DOES describe a god who’s a psychopath.
Wrong. Plenty of Christians define ( and have defined ) their God as a monster. They don’t use the word monster or psychopath, but a creature that demands worship, or tyranny, or genocide, or the torture of unbelievers, or the infinite agony of those who disagree with them IS a monster. And that’s what millions of Christians define God as being like.