Bullshit, DROPZONE, and I’d suggest you don’t attempt to tell me what my religion means.
Christianity is not incompatible with self-defense.
Except that “do not kill” is more rightly translated as “do not murder” – or did they skip that in your theology courses? The OT abounds with incidences of capital punishment and wars, not all of which are seen as evil acts.
The NT concerns itself almost exclusively with personal morality, not societal morality, as a person studying it extensively should realize. In any event, “turn the other cheek” does not translate to “thou shalt be a doormat.” As I have already pointed out, Jesus also commanded His disciples to carry a sword in a hostile world. What do you think He was telling them to carry it for – decoration?
No, because the commandment “do not murder” is obviously not incompatible with societal justice or self-defense. It’s not as if this commandment is even exclusively a Christian one – as a Jewish scholar if it means “you should never kill, ever, not even in strictest self-defense.”
Well, it sure as hell sounds like you are – something I’m sure you wouldn’t do to Islam, even though it has been perverted to justify the death of 7000 people.
I have never said, and do not say, that God is on our side. It’s pretty tough to determine precisely where God is at these days, and I’m the first to admit it. But that does not mean that Christianity is or even has been a religion of pacifism, as it is interpreted and practiced by the majority of Christians.
Can Christianity be twisted to justify violence? Yes, just as Islam can be (obviously), and Judaism. I am not in favor of that. But it nevertheless is not a religion of strict pacifism. There is a huge middle ground between “let’s kill them all and let God sort them out” and “you can never kill anyone, not even to defend yourself, your family, or your country.” Most of Christianity is in that middle. And I get a little tired of people attacking what they say Christianity is, simply because it’s so much easier than attacking what it really is.
RTFIREFLY – You probably know the answer to your own question better than I do. My understanding of the teaching of my church is that one may defend one’s possessions to the extent – and only to the extent – it is necessary to preserve one’s life. In other words, if you have food to keep yourself or family from starving, you may resist having it taken away. “Honor” is much more strictly proscribed, and much more difficult to defend, meaning only chastity (which again is probably more rightly considered self-defense.
If you take issue with the Christian right to defend property and honor, that is fine with me; I will not argue it. My main point is that defense of self, family, and nation are not incompatible with the tenets of Christianity. Do you disagree?