As A Christian, When Is It Ok to Fight/Kill?

[Etu Malku]

I'm Christian, I have zero qualms about kicking somebody's ass if they willfully attempt to injure me, or anyone in my family.

Whatever happened to "turn the other cheek" there Mr. christian?

For the record, I'm a Luciferian and we believe in preemptive strikes!

[Beckys_Mom]

Whatever happened to "turn the other cheek" there Mr. christian?

He is a family man and will do what it takes to protect his loved ones.. I think he his right in doing so ..I would do the same, even if it meant I would have to die trying

[Simbi Laveau]

On my moms side of the family ,many of the men were career military men .One of them ,my uncle Jack,was devoutly religious .He worked in the church after he left the military ,and eventually became a Deacon I believe .

I actually asked him this question ,when I was a child .

He told me ,god could forgive us for even killing ,if it was our job ,or to protect . Like if you are a cop ,or in the military ,and you are sworn to protect life .

He obviously ,as a military man ,had to come to terms with this,on a personal level .I assume he spoke at length to his priest ,before ,during and after he served.

This is what he told me .

[Etu Malku]

He is a family man and will do what it takes to protect his loved ones.. I think he his right in doing so ..I would do the same, even if it meant I would have to die trying

Family man or not, it is not a very Christian thing not to "turn the other cheek", which always makes me laugh about Christians and most other religions, they only use what is good for them and disregard the rest . . . so much for scripture!

[+and-then]

Family man or not, it is not a very Christian thing not to "turn the other cheek", which always makes me laugh about Christians and most other religions, they only use what is good for them and disregard the rest . . . so much for scripture!

Sounds like you're throwing out the scripture because mankind follows it imperfectly. But the truth for most is that they throw it out because they want nothing and no one to tell them anything. So we have 7 billion souls doing a Frank Sinatra and the condition of the world proves that we actually NEED some direction.

[pallidin]

I'm an atheist, I can kill anyone.....

Well, that would not be good. I have a "friend" in the High Desert State Prison in California that probably wishes he had not taken a life. 50-life is his sentence.

[calvaryoakville]

It is ok to fight if the problem is worth fighting for.. But NOT TO KILL! christians didnt do that things we should not let ourselves be one of the unbelievers that was doing that kinda things

Children's ministry in Mississauga

[Jinxdom]

Just do what the crusades did just run around and try to kill everybody non-christian, or you could do the witch burning thing first call them a witch then burn them at the stake.

In all seriousness I think he was trying to say is don't act out in vengeance when people do awful things to you not actually saying hey let that guy beat you senseless. Defend yourself but don't go out on a murderous revenge rampage after the fact. Do the whole call the cops or whatever the normal way is to do that stuff. (My version is reload pretty sure it's not normal but meh)

The whole thou shall not kill thing they really need to change it to murder to avoid confusion since later on in the bible it tells you about murders and manslaughters.

[Beckys_Mom]

Family man or not, it is not a very Christian thing not to

I don't think he gives a rap.. do you ? Name me a single Christian that follow the bible to the very letter ?

If this Christian man was to stand back and allow his family members to be killed..and he does nothing... How many will blast him for it ? I know quite a few that would slam him..

There would be a lot of - How could he posts ? OHH and a bunch of - > Typical religion allowing their loved ones to die, strikes again... ..Ohh you betcha many will love to get at any Christian for doing just that

Edited October 25, 2012 by Beckys_Mom

[WoIverine]

Family man or not, it is not a very Christian thing not to "turn the other cheek", which always makes me laugh about Christians and most other religions, they only use what is good for them and disregard the rest . . . so much for scripture!

Am I a great Christian? Do I follow all the rules? Nope. Doesn't mean I don't try, but I'm human like everybody else. I screw up. Thing is, I can ask for forgiveness. In the heat of the moment, you don't really think about that though, sometimes there comes a point where all you do is react, it's almost involuntary. With some things in life, as a man, you've also got to take a stand even if it goes against your core beliefs. Jesus did that to those who were desecrating holy ground. I can almost guarantee you that if He saw someone beating a child, He'd drop them too, either that or temporarily paralyze them. That said, JC was 6'3, and a carpenter, I wouldn't really want to be on the receiving end of divine right hook.

Edited October 25, 2012 by WoIverine

[Bling]

Well, that would not be good. I have a "friend" in the High Desert State Prison in California that probably wishes he had not taken a life. 50-life is his sentence.

Yeah I was joking

[Etu Malku]

I don't think he gives a rap.. do you ? Name me a single Christian that follow the bible to the very letter ?

If this Christian man was to stand back and allow his family members to be killed..and he does nothing... How many will blast him for it ? I know quite a few that would slam him..

There would be a lot of - How could he posts ? OHH and a bunch of - > Typical religion allowing their loved ones to die, strikes again... ..Ohh you betcha many will love to get at any Christian for doing just that

Then he's following his own bastardized version of the Gospels then, isn't he?

Wait a minute . . . isn't that exactly what Constantine did when he edited all the Gospels into what HE considered Christianity?

[Setton]

Then he's following his own bastardized version of the Gospels then, isn't he?

Wait a minute . . . isn't that exactly what Constantine did when he edited all the Gospels into what HE considered Christianity?

Well if you want to find someone who follows every rule in the Bible, good luck. Even if you manage to agree on a version, it contradicts itself so many times it's impossible.

[WoIverine]

Then he's following his own bastardized version of the Gospels then, isn't he?

Wait a minute . . . isn't that exactly what Constantine did when he edited all the Gospels into what HE considered Christianity?

Last I checked I didn't judge your "luiciferian" belief system. As a fellow human being, I have shown you that respect. It actually wouldn't surprise me if you're unable to do the same.

[Beckys_Mom]

Then he's following his own bastardized version of the Gospels then, isn't he?

In English that is ?

[Etu Malku]

Last I checked I didn't judge your "luiciferian" belief system. As a fellow human being, I have shown you that respect. It actually wouldn't surprise me if you're unable to do the same.

You wouldn't understand it (Luciferianism) enough to judge or criticize, but that's besides the point.

I do respect others beliefs, but it is true what I have said, if there exists scripture that one is to follow and to abide by, then that is what enables someone to adhere to that belief system, otherwise it's just your version of the original beliefs.

I apologize if I came across crass towards your religious beliefs.

[JGirl]

it's never okay, although (sadly) sometimes necessary.

[Ninhursag]

When I was a kid the nun in my religion class once said that if you kill someone in self defence you won't go to hell ..

[Mr Walker]

Any evidence to back these statements up? Christ, there isn't even any evidence that some Jesus dude even existed!

In which case there isn't any evidence that any god dude existed, or ordered all those deaths you just attributed to him either.

[Mr Walker]

My thoughts. Christ divided the world, and life, into the spiritual and temporal. Personally for fairly obvious reasons in the christ narative, he placed a higher emphasis on the spiritual, but he also recognised this was not the case for most humans.

He also taught about how to behave and to treat people on this earth, in this life. A person deciding on this issue has to decide which aspect of christ to prioritise and which to minimise. We can't use christ's surrender to the authorities as a good example because he had to surrender. That was his choice and purpose and necessary to fulfil his destiny.

It also depends on whether you believe in free wil or destiny whehter we can alter one future for a different one by the choices we make.

For example if I know that i cna make a differnce and save a persons life then i will act to do so. But if i believe it is their destiny to die then why should i bother. As a person who knows we have free will I also know that god intends us to have the capacity to act for good and for evil. Sometimes killing prevents a greater evil or destructive outcome. Sometimes failure to kill ensures greater suffering and destruction This was gods rationale with the flood and with the destruction of soddom and gommorah in the bible narratives about god. That god would expect us to think as clearly and logically as he did in those scenarios, and to act in a similar logic.

Actiing to good intent does not condemn a person. God judges our hearts and minds not our deeds and actions. We must do on earth what we can, in good conscience, to make the earth a better place. That is why murder is condemned in the old testament but lawful kiling is not.

If all killing was condemned then no lawmakers and guardians of the law would be able to pass death sentences or kill people. No one would be able to defend them selves individually or as a nation. There is no evidence in the old testamen ttha t this was the case. Quite the contrary, and christ really makes no case to alter the old laws or commandments. He comes to fulfill them not to remove them .

And so christ admonished people to render unto caesar that which was caesar's, or to obey the laws of the land in all civil matters. Only in the spiritual, do gods laws overide caesars. Life on earth and death is not a spiritual priority for christ. The spiritual priority in christs teachings come after this life although we are asked to live our life on earth as close to how we might live in heaven as is practicable.

I can empathise with a person who choses to interpret christ's teachings as absolute pacifism and surrender of this life, when required, rather than resisting death, and yet christ healed the sick and raised the dead; hardly the acts of a person who did not value life on this earth. If life on this earth has value, then we have a duty to protect it, and if that requires taking life to protect a greater number of lives or those of innocents, then i cant see christ arguing with that.

[Yamato]

Then he's following his own bastardized version of the Gospels then, isn't he?

Wait a minute . . . isn't that exactly what Constantine did when he edited all the Gospels into what HE considered Christianity?

Who doesn't follow their own interpretation of something? That's what everyone does. Unless it's the law and it's from the gobmint, and then you don't have a choice. Interpreting that is the court's job. Go tell the magic man in the black robe up on the wooden pedestal looking down at his room full of little people and hope he believes you.

[Yamato]

This thread's question was closed in four words: Christian Just War Theory.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just_war_theory#Criteria_of_Just_War_theory

Just War Theory has two sets of criteria. The first establishing jus ad bellum, the right to go to war; the second establishing jus in bello, right conduct within war.^[19]

Jus ad bellum

Main article: Jus ad bellum Just cause The reason for going to war needs to be just and cannot therefore be solely for recapturing things taken or punishing people who have done wrong; innocent life must be in imminent danger and intervention must be to protect life. A contemporary view of just cause was expressed in 1993 when the US Catholic Conference said: "Force may be used only to correct a grave, public evil, i.e., aggression or massive violation of the basic human rights of whole populations." Comparative justice While there may be rights and wrongs on all sides of a conflict, to overcome the presumption against the use of force, the injustice suffered by one party must significantly outweigh that suffered by the other. Some theorists such as Brian Orend omit this term, seeing it as fertile ground for exploitation by bellicose regimes. Competent authority Only duly constituted public authorities may wage war. "A just war must be initiated by a political authority within a political system that allows distinctions of justice. Dictatorships (e.g. Hitler's Regime) or deceptive military actions (e.g. the 1968 US bombing of Cambodia) are typically considered as violations of this criterion. The importance of this condition is key. Plainly, we cannot have a genuine process of judging a just war within a system that represses the process of genuine justice. A just war must be initiated by a political authority within a political system that allows distinctions of justice".^[20] Right intention Force may be used only in a truly just cause and solely for that purpose—correcting a suffered wrong is considered a right intention, while material gain or maintaining economies is not. Probability of success Arms may not be used in a futile cause or in a case where disproportionate measures are required to achieve success; Last resort Force may be used only after all peaceful and viable alternatives have been seriously tried and exhausted or are clearly not practical. It may be clear that the other side is using negotiations as a delaying tactic and will not make meaningful concessions. Proportionality The anticipated benefits of waging a war must be proportionate to its expected evils or harms. This principle is also known as the principle of macro-proportionality, so as to distinguish it from the jus in bello principle of proportionality.

In modern terms, just war is waged in terms of self-defense, or in defense of another (with sufficient evidence).

Jus in bello

Once war has begun, just war theory (Jus in bello) also directs how combatants are to act or should act: Distinction Just war conduct should be governed by the principle of distinction. The acts of war should be directed towards enemy combatants, and not towards non-combatants caught in circumstances they did not create. The prohibited acts include bombing civilian residential areas that include no military targets and committing acts of terrorism or reprisal against civilians. Moreover, combatants are not permitted to target with violence enemy combatants who have surrendered or who have been captured or who are injured and not presenting an immediate lethal threat. Proportionality Just war conduct should be governed by the principle of proportionality. An attack cannot be launched on a military objective in the knowledge that the incidental civilian injuries would be clearly excessive in relation to the anticipated military advantage (principle of proportionality). Military necessity Just war conduct should be governed by the principle of minimum force. An attack or action must be intended to help in the military defeat of the enemy, it must be an attack on a military objective, and the harm caused to civilians or civilian property must be proportional and not excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated. This principle is meant to limit excessive and unnecessary death and destruction. Fair treatment of prisoners of war Enemy soldiers who surrendered or who are captured no longer pose a threat. It is therefore wrong to torture them or otherwise mistreat them. No means malum in se Soldiers may not use weapons or other methods of warfare which are considered evil, such as mass rape, forcing soldiers to fight against their own side or using weapons whose effects cannot be controlled (e.g. nuclear weapons).

[Etu Malku]

Who doesn't follow their own interpretation of something? That's what everyone does.

Isn't that the point of religion though? It isn't open to interpretation because God is omniscient & omnipotent and perfect, so obviously his Laws are perfect

[Mr Walker]

Isn't that the point of religion though? It isn't open to interpretation because God is omniscient & omnipotent and perfect, so obviously his Laws are perfect

Who told you god was any of those things? And why on earth did you believe them ?

[Yamato]

Isn't that the point of religion though? It isn't open to interpretation because God is omniscient & omnipotent and perfect, so obviously his Laws are perfect

Is God? That's just an interpretation. God didn't promise us parking spaces, and sports teams victories, and that promotion at work we've been pining for, or for our young men and women to come home safe from the ridiculous foreign wars our government sends our young people to get maimed and killed over. It's interpretations like that which might cause people to reject spirituality and resign themselves to believe in only what they've been told has been proven, which is the most anti-scientific mindset of all. The choice isn't between Santa Claus in the Sky for Adults, and Nothing. It's an infinite field of possibilities that the blind in denial will never allow themselves the chance to find.