|
|
Post by Mr. Daniel on May 13, 2013 9:00:19 GMT -5
Jesus taught nonviolence and refused to use violence to save his own life. Is it morally inconsistent for Christians to be devoted to Jesus but also support wars?
|
|
|
|
Post by petercolosimo on May 13, 2013 9:22:28 GMT -5
I believe that it is not morally inconsistent for Christians to support wars if the purpose of the war is to help society become better. If the war taking place will result in the betterment of people's lives, then it should be supported. If the war will be more destructive than helpful to society and will take innocent lives, then Christians should not support it.
|
|
|
|
Post by boweng on May 14, 2013 10:16:14 GMT -5
Jesus' message was not to be passive and let evil happen, but he doesn't say to respond violently. We are supposed to take action yet we are supposed to take action no violently. Supporting war is not morally inconsistent. We have different reasons we go to war, if the reasons are to restore peace and common good in society it is okay to support. So I would agree with peter on this because it isn't against our religion to support war.
|
|
|
|
Post by isabeller on May 19, 2013 19:33:07 GMT -5
I agree with Geriet and Peter about how going to war does not go against christianity. I also think everything Jesus does is not meant to be taken literally, because many stories in the bible aren't literal but metaphorical. Jesus preaches nonviolence but i would like to think he doesn't deem it a necessity for all christians to uphold such a belief. Because war can be for many different reasons and even though it is violent, the goal usually is to better society or protect it. And i don't think those values are morally inconsistent with Christian beliefs.
|
|
|
|
Post by eringallan on May 20, 2013 20:09:58 GMT -5
I agree with peter that it is not right for Christians to support war and all violence is wrong. But I disagree that war can be done if it betters the life of people. I believe that you can always work out an agreement without going to war and you should try to be peaceful. But no everyone who declares war is Christian so war does happen.
|
|
|
|
Post by margwalker06 on May 22, 2013 8:17:24 GMT -5
I agree with Peter and Geriet because if the purpose of war is to save your country and it is done for the right reasons then it is okay for Christians to support it. However I do think that war in bello must be just, so nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction would be immoral and Christians should not suport that. I disagree with Erin because I don't think that there is any way that opposing countries could make peaceful agreements all of the time especially considering corrupt leaders of other countires such as Hitler and Stalin. Theres no way that either of them would have been willing to make peace with us without war.
|
|
|
|
Post by dmelson on May 22, 2013 20:18:01 GMT -5
I also agree with marg, war must be done for the right reasons for Christians to support it. Also one of the fist principles of Just War is that even devoted and faithful Christians can have different opinions about war and whether is is necessary or not. Christians must take the Church's views into account but are free to agree with and support wars and still be considered a good Christian.
|
|
|
|
Post by peterjuska on May 22, 2013 21:22:35 GMT -5
The argument proposed- since Jesus was nonviolent, we must me nonviolent- is far too generalized. Jesus lived 2000 years ago. His beliefs were meant to only be a leg up for furthering the Christian belief. Since today we are more technologically advanced, we have guns and weapons of mass destruction. These are clearly possible threats to society, and religious beliefs should not be taken into thought when discussing war. In reality though, religion is taken into thought when making the just war argument. I disagree with the quote "All violence is wrong and Christians should not support war". I do agree with dmelson in that war must be done for the right reasons.
|
|
|
|
Post by petercolosimo on May 23, 2013 9:15:25 GMT -5
I agree with Peter in that religion should not be the deciding factor in whether or not a country goes to war. You should not be able to argue against a war citing religious reasons. I believe that war should only take place if the good outweighs the bad.
|
|
|
|
Post by isabeller on May 23, 2013 13:37:35 GMT -5
I completely agree with what Peter said about how the nonviolence Jesus preached was far to generalized. This is a completely different era and we cannot base our wars off something that was so long ago. Technology was practically nonexistant during Jesus' time so they never even had the option to attack another nation with guns and other weapons. It is too much of a reach to say that we have to pacifists because Jesus was.
|
|
|
|
Post by margwalker06 on May 23, 2013 14:20:23 GMT -5
Peter bring up a good point about how religion should not decide whether or not a country goes to war. Particularly in the United States individuals have the freedom to follow whichever religion they please, which means that several different religions exist. If there are multiple religions that means that people are undoubdtedly going to have differing religious beliefs, so basing a war off of religion simply wouldn't work.
|
|
|
|
Post by karinad on May 24, 2013 19:46:04 GMT -5
I concede that in an ideal world, war would be nonexistent. However, given a certain set of circumstances, it may be morally necessary--that is, it would be immoral not to go to war. I can think of very few things less moral than a refusal/unwillingness to combat evil/injustice. It is like the innocent bystander scenario--if you are not part of the solution, you're part of the problem.
|
|
