ISTM that the Catechism places the burden in the wrong place. Christians certainly can’t count on secular governments to determine whether wars are ‘just’ by Christian standards; we have to make our own judgments on that score.
And maybe a soldier, or a would-be soldier, “can’t be expected to have all evidence in hand to make the necessary judgment” but that’s life: we’re always having to make choices, including moral judgments, on the basis of incomplete evidence.
The soldier doesn’t cease being a Christian when he becomes a soldier. Accordingly, he must continue to be a moral actor, and must refuse to fight in wars that Jesus wouldn’t want him to fight in, whether his standard is the ‘just war’ standard or some other Biblically-based standard.
At any rate, because Jesus’ worldview and the world’s worldview are fundamentally different, it goes without saying, IMHO, that one can’t trust the government to make the right choice, and that Christians should stay out of the military unless they believe that God is specifically calling them to be there.
Amen to that. Plenty of Christians believe that if know about Christ and [evangelical Protestant version] haven’t accepted him as your personal Savior, or [Roman Catholic version] have refused to become a Christian or partake of the Sacraments, then you’re going to spend eternity in Hell.
I also have known plenty of people of both persuasions who are convinced that most people will go to Hell.
Call such a God what you will, but ‘psychopath’ seems to suit quite well.
Do you mind if I keep and use this quote? I’m putting together a website of logical fallacies, and was having hard time finding a good example of begging the question. This one is perfect! It’s textbook!
You forget the actions of Jesus when he attacked the moneychangers. He did not accept the status quo. He drove them out with whips. It is not inconsistent to stand up for what you believe to be right.
We have infused the ideas expressed by Jesus in everyday lessons. “Sticks and stones will break my bones but words will never harm me” is a classic example of passively deflecting anger using words. It took centuries to relearn the simple lessons taught by Jesus and the process was certainly not pretty.
Sampiro and the weekly challengers of Christianity should be aware that the Bible is not a contiguous writing dictated by Jesus. It is a compilation of various books. Christ made no attempt to record his words in any form. His messages were simple and do not require philosophical debate.
Ah! Skewered enfilade! I admit my error. Der Tris is right. Christians define god as a monster, because their definition of God is monsterly.
So getting back to the thread, it seems rather obvious, then, why Christians justify military service. Its a monsterly thing to do. What’s the problem? :rolleyes:
When Jesus praised the Roman soldier’s faith (Luke 7:1-10), he didn’t then turn around and tell him he had to leave the Roman army. When Peter baptised Cornelius (Acts 10), a Roman soldier, he didn’t tell him to leave the military. When soldiers asked John the Baptist what they should do (Luke 3:14), he told them “Don’t extort money or make false accusations. And be content with your pay.” He didn’t tell them they had to leave the military. So if Jesus, Peter, and John the Baptist were okay with military service, why shouldn’t I be?
Jesus lived in a country that was occupied by a brutal overlord. The Romans had crucified thousands of Jews by this time; the Jewish kings had crucified thousands of opposing Jews before the Romans ever took over the land, and Rome’s client king Herod murdered thousands of political opponents, one of his wives, her entire family (the last of the Maccabees) and several of his own sons and other relatives as well as (if the gospel account is to believed) all the children of Bethlehem [a story that is at once almost impossible to believe and has no historical verification but at the same time is not at all out of character for what is known of Herod]). Herod’s son Archelaus was banished by Rome for tyranny, and Antipas killed John the Baptist and would himself be banished for incompetence and tyranny (mainly due to a war with Nabatea, a Jordanian kingdom capitoled at what’s now Petra over his doubly incestuous and adulterous liaison with his niece/sister-in-law/cousin Herodias for whom he’d divorced the Nabatean king’s daughter but kept her dowry). A generation after Jesus the Romans would raze most of the temple and destroy most of Jerusalem and reconsecrate it to pagan gods. He most certainly understood the concept of a totalitarian regime, yet not only did he not preach democracy but he taught slaves to stay in their places, he healed the servant of a Roman centurion, and he preached to keep paying taxes to Caesar and not to attack. (When bar Kokhba led a full-scale revolt against Rome a century after Christ and for the holiest of reasons (Hadrian’s ban on circumcision and other interferences with Jewish dogma as well as the reconsecration of the temple to pagan gods) there was debate among Christians in the region as to whether Jesus would want them to fight.)
The “bringing democracy is Christian” argument doesn’t hold water. Christ certainly had the opportunity and the incentive (and even the following) to preach about opposing and resisting tyrants. The whole purpose of his execution was to crush a possible rebellion towards Rome (Romans couldn’t care less who claimed to be the Hebrew messiah or what did or didn’t constitute sacrelige to the Jews, but they cared very much that a man with a following was being called “King of the Jews”).
eta: or, now that I’ve finished reading the thread, what others have said far more concisely.
I think most of us are quite aware of that. In addition to having studied religion and the history of the 1st century in some depth (not as much as I’d like admittedly) I used to very religious myself and went to a super-religious school (that actually did a good job at religious instruction, I must allow).
Bit of an aside, but I totally understand Tevye’s lyrics that “If I were a rich man”…" I’d discuss the holy books with the learned men seven hours every day/and that would be the sweetest thing of all". I’d LOVE to have the liberty to devote my life to this study, to learn classical Hebrew and Greek and… oy, time to go feed the chickens (“yadduh deedle daidle digguh digguh deedle daidle dum…”).
So then it’s quite alright to interpret it any way one pleases?
The idea of a judgemental Paul vs. a lovey-dovey Jesus is a really simplistic view of the NT. You think Jesus wasn’t judgemental? The same Jesus who said “Anyone who puts a hand to the plow and then looks back is not fit for the Kingdom of God,” to the guy who wanted to say goodbye to his family before following him (Luke 9:61-62)?
The one who said
The one who said
Paul’s judgemental? The same Paul who argued that Gentiles should be accepted as they are into the church? The same Paul who said
The same Paul who said
Or this
Just 1 Corinthians 13 alone should be enough to dispel the idea of “judgemental Paul.”
I have no idea how Christians can justify military service, and it’s upsetting to be asked to pray for soldiers when we are in church on Sunday. There’s no way someone enlisting can know the wars they will ask to fight in will be just ones, and they have given over that power to choose to a secular organization. Taking the skills and beliefs you have and turning them to learning how to kill other people is unbelievable if you claim to be peaceful and loving. No, most soldiers may not end up directly killing someone, but the whole group is responsible for the “mission”.
Of course I am not patriotic at all because eventually that kind of belief would come in conflict with belief in God, and there’s no contest there.
Some do, some don’t. The person here trying to push a logical fallacy here is you and not me. No doubt that’s why you essentially tried to say "No, no, using the term ‘No True Scotsman’ isn’t allowed !’, because that’s just what you are doing. There are, quite literally, millions of Christians who follow versions of God that are hateful, nasty, egomaniacal mass murderers and torturers. You say that’s not what your image of God is like ? Fine, but I’m afraid you are not the official definer of what is and is not True Christianity. There isn’t one; the "God burns unbelievers forever’ Christians have just as much evidence for being "True Christians’ ( none, in other words ) as you do.
I don’t think he killed anybody but then I don’t think you have to kill someone in order to fight oppression. I’ve stopped bar fights before without killing anyone. And I didn’t realize he had to bring democracy to the temple to satisfy your litmus test but his followers have certainly brought it to many places.
And taken it away from others. Christianity hasn’t ever been especially friendly towards democracy. Certainly a great many nasty regimes ( up to and including including Hitler’s and the other fascist regimes ) have gotten lots of Christian support, because they opposed “godless Communism”.
All of the various countries whose “left wing” elected governments we overthrew in order to install right wing dictatorships. All of the dictators we’ve supported in general certainly haven’t helped democracy.
And I wasn’t speaking of just the US; I was speaking of Christians in general. So, include things like the Catholic Church’s support of fascism, and all the Christians who’ve tried to write their beleifs into law regardless of people’s wishes.
