Why aren't Christians pacifists?

slightofjeff wrote:

sure you can. Like anything, it's all in the interpretation.

this is the kind of attitude that makes me say, "that is why i am not a christian." christians could never agree with the message.

don't gimme no wrote:

Jesus... :rolleyes:

as I mentioned earlier, there are numerous passages in the bible that can be used to support the doctrine that not only is war SOMETIMES justifiable, it is a SOMETIMES a moral obligation.

The Bible is just a lot more complicated than just a bunch of feel-good platitudes and one-liners. Do I understand it all? Not really ...

What I do know is that there is no "official" biblical statement on war. You have to take the book, the whole book, and try to deduce for yourself what it has to say.

deadnothingbetter wrote:

i'm having a hard time understanding your question. does faith have a context? in what way? i can speak about faith in a biblical way, or i can speak about it in a philisophical way... or tie them both together. Does the message vary from situation to situation? Like how? i'm not sure what you're asking. i mean, i could say, no, the message doesn't vary from situation to situation. the message is still the same... but i need to make sure what you're asking before i can answer you with a more elaborate one.

Well, okay, let me see if I can straighten out my own thoughts on this...

As far as faith justifying a war, which is the issue here... Would Christianity - or, more specifically, the Bible - justify World War 2 for the Allies? And to go deeper, could it Hitler use the Bible to justify his side?

In the same way, would Christianity/the Bible justify the war against "terror", which could be called a war against radical Islam? And I'm not necessarily talking about the war on terror in an idealistic "fighting the terrorists" way, but taking into account the fallout we're seeing in Iraq...

So - that's a loaded question. Sorry:p

There is no agreement that a fetus is not a human and where the line is drawn, but you liberals go ahead and kill it anyway. So stop being holier than thou and realize that people can disagree over the Bible's message (although in the end only one interpretation is correct).

Rhinocerous Surprise wrote:

So the Bible doesn't justify war, but would you say it necessarily advocates pacifism?

(Also: there's a whole other issue I want to get into about the Bible, but I'll ask another time...:D)

it's more of a mindset rather than advocating pacifism... it doesn't condemn you if you slap someone back... it's mainly saying that there's another way of winning a war... the weapon is love. love can beat anything... and i truly believe this.... at least, the kind of love that Jesus was advocating, which is more than just a quasi-feeling.

deadnothingbetter wrote:

it's more of a mindset rather than advocating pacifism... it doesn't condemn you if you slap someone back... it's mainly saying that there's another way of winning a war... the weapon is love. love can beat anything... and i truly believe this.... at least, the kind of love that Jesus was advocating, which is more than just a quasi-feeling.

Which would seem to me to be the basis of morality... Do unto others as you would have them do unto you, all that noise. So it basically just leads back into the argument over whether morality is intrinsically linked to religion...

Which I really don't want to get into, and I'm sure you don't.:p

deadnothingbetter wrote:

well, that only depends what you think of me. i don't think morality is something linked to religion... i think that by nature we are who we are... but it doesn't negate the fact (edit: or the idea) that there was a creator who constructed us with these facets.

I was gonna argue until you edited.:D And don't worry, I think very highly of you right now. You seem to able to argue for religion without resorting to blind faith, and I respect that.

So while I've got your attention, I'm gonna go off-topic for just a little bit...:p
If you read the the first link I posted on the first page, the Catholic magazine calls acceptance of homosexual behaviour "low moral standards". I know this is based on a line from the bible (man shall not lie with fellow man or something?)

Basically, I was wondering if you'd consider homosexuality a sin, or does today's more tolerant world (and perhaps, expanded understanding of the human condition) make the hardline "homosexuality is wrong" mindset outdated?

catefrances wrote:

there can be no doubt that the foetus growing inside a human woman is in fact human. it can not be classed as anything else.



if two people interpret the bible differently and yet both still lead righteous lives, does that not make both their interpreattaions correct?

I agree with you on the fetus being human.

I do not think that two separate interpretations can be correct if the underlying facts are consistent (i.e., murder vs. self-defense would be two different fact patterns regarding the killing of another person). What is your definition of righteous? Perfect? Sinless? If that is the case, than the subject being interpreted was either not a sin issue, and or there can be two interpretations that are right (I just don't see this though).

Example:
Baptism - lots of disagreement on this issue, but in the end only one answer can be correct. But, if the answer is it is not required, then I guess those that thought it was are still going to be okay. But, their interpretation was still wrong.

Rhinocerous Surprise wrote:

I was gonna argue until you edited.:D And don't worry, I think very highly of you right now. You seem to able to argue for religion without resorting to blind faith, and I respect that.

So while I've got your attention, I'm gonna go off-topic for just a little bit...:p
If you read the the first link I posted on the first page, the Catholic magazine calls acceptance of homosexual behaviour "low moral standards". I know this is based on a line from the bible (man shall not lie with fellow man or something?)

Basically, I was wondering if you'd consider homosexuality a sin, or does today's more tolerant world (and perhaps, expanded understanding of the human condition) make the hardline "homosexuality is wrong" mindset outdated?

this is where you make me walk on ice... see, as a believer i'm always being judged by what i say because it might seem as if i'm condemning someone who has other standards of living... i wouldn't call it a "low moral standard" myself though. it's important to understand that i believe in the bible... and it's also important for me to understand that there are those who don't. so while i might give an answer i might be offending others... to sum it up, the bible never agrees with homosexuality... if a person wants to condemn the bible's message for it then sobeit. why then should we get into this argument? why try to convince unbelievers?

if someone believes homosexuality is wrong, then take it as such, a belief. if someone believes it's ok, then take it as such. otherwise we'd both be going in circles. i could never convince someone it is wrong.... so i will never wasste my time living with that hardline miindset. outdated or not... there are just different values that we all have to face with. like smoking marijuana, or drinking beer... sleeping with countless number of sex partners... not stopping to help someone with a flat tire, or vice-versa.... or preaching the "word of God". just take 'em at face value, i guess, it's my stance.

my conclusion is that if someone wants to understand the real juice of it.... if someone wants to see and understand the way a believer would, then we'd have to open our minds to what the Bible really has to say.... like the scripture itself says, "faith comes from hearing... and hearing by the word of God."

catefrances wrote:

if two people interpret the bible differently and yet both still lead righteous lives, does that not make both their interpreattaions correct?

maybe your understanding of the biblical righteous is completely different from your own. the bible says that there is no one that is righteous.