Gun-Ho Christianity.

[BigJon16]

A "friend" of mine on Facebook posted the following status:

[quote]

"Please consider joining Nigerian Christians during their time of crisis by fasting and praying with them." ,,,

It is things like this that drive me up the walls. Why are Christians being killed around the world? Because we ask for prayers instead of guns.

If a few hundred armed "Jesus Jihadis" showed up to provide security for church goers, the attacks would cease.
Time to fight the enemy with his own rules.

[/quote]

I highly disagreed with this, and thought it would be an interesting topic to bring up.

The kind of Christianity that Im referring to is to are the guys who feel that it is justifiable for a Christian to fight back.

Some (ones that Ive met) seem to be fairly radical. They seem like the Christian version of the random radical Islamists who use there faith to attempt to justify heinous acts, when in truth, they are very wrong. (Taliban? Al-Qaeda? Not sure if they are the best examples.) These are a different version than my "dear friend" that I had mentioned above. But still are very contradictory.

I argue the following:
The very essence Christianity is that we should forgive our aggressors. "But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you" Matt 5:44

‎"Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God . . . . Do not resist the evil man but whoever slaps you on the right cheek turn to him the other also. And if anyone wants to sue you for your shirt, let him have your coat as well. Love your enemies. Give to everyone who asks you; when a man takes what is yours, do not demand it back" (Luke 6:30 and Matt. 5:9-44).

Jesus declared that the life of the Christian will be different from the life of the Old Testament Jew. One of the areas of change is in the Christian's relations with other people. Love is now to be the overriding concern. He said, "You have learned that our forefathers were told, 'Do not commit murder; anyone who commits murder must be brought to judgement.' But what I tell you is this: Anyone who nurses anger against his brother must be brought to judgment. If he abuses his brother he must answer for it to the court; if he sneers at him he will have to answer for it in the fires of hell" (Matt. 5:21-24).

I really need to learn to mind my own business when I'm on Facebook, I really dislike debates in a way.



Ready, set, GO!

[MIKolbe]

1) it's called gung-ho

2) I have no problem with using violence in the immediate defense of life.

5) I have a problem actively seeking possible reasons to use violence as the sole means to an end.

[Selah]

[quote]
2) I have no problem with using violence in the immediate defense of life.
[/quote]

This.

[Maximilianus]

Kind of easy to look down on Christians providing security for themselves when you live the the relative safety of a nation that has the capacity to defend you.


Should Christians take up arms and seek vengeance, never. Should Christians be able to defend themselves, yes.

[Basilisa Marie]

Yes, Christians should defend themselves. But "Jesus Jihadis" is totally out of line. Honestly, what would Christ have us do in this situation? Didn't he tell Peter to put down his sword? I can only hope that if I were in their situation, I'd be able to act with heroic virtue.


[quote name='MIkolbe' timestamp='1318882739' post='2322836']

5) I have a problem actively seeking possible reasons to use violence as the sole means to an end.
[/quote]

This.

[arfink]

Gun-ho works for me.

As everyone else has said, lethal means of self defense are morally legit.

[Guest]

Take a look at catholic history....

[MithLuin]

Your friend seems to be suggesting that if Christians 'fought back' no one would mess with them. The 'you burn my church...I massacre your family!' routine does get people's attention, sure, but has it ever worked to actually stop violence?

No.

Gang warfare means that one act of retaliation inspires another in kind. Should some sort of 'Christian jihadist' decide to go take revenge for attacks...guess what? The people who are the targets would then be revenged by their supporters. Etc.

Violence never works to just scare everyone into submission. There are those who are too brazen to be intimidated by it...and those who will react in the same way, begetting retalitory violence.


Resisting nonviolently is a much more effective strategy, and also one that is Biblically supported. The answers to the problems of this world aren't going to be 'priests with guns.' I'm not saying a priest can't own or fire a gun like anyone else (especially if needed for defense of his community), but organized militias run by armed priests are always going to be condemned by Rome. And if that is the case...seems rather difficult to justify the rest of us doing that.


Certainly, the violence in Nigeria is not a good thing. But if you think it's just about 'religious differences' then you are very confused about Nigerian politics. There are cultural differences between North and South, there, and religion is used as a powder keg to spark anger in the midst of other conflicts. Chrisian and Muslim families can intermarry and get along just fine there...until the political unrest hits a flashpoint.

And if you think the Christians never fight back....85% of the population of Rwanda was Christian. (56% Roman Catholic, in fact). Hutus and Tutsis. The genocide there was not exactly an example of how Christians ought to handle conflict! (I realize that machetes aren't guns, but it's the same idea.)

[iheartjp2]

@Mlkolbe I believe "gun-ho" is a play on the word "gung-ho".

[MIKolbe]

I do not acknowledge play on words.

They are like stuffed warthogs. And don't get me started on THAT topic...

[Ed Normile]

Mitluin, I think you misread the post, the "friend" of BigJon wrote that if [b]"If a few hundred armed "Jesus Jihadis" showed up to provide security for church goers, the attacks would cease."[/b] , now providing security is a far cry from taking revenge for an attack. I would agree with defending ones church or fellow parishioners from an attack, and I would disagree with any form of vigilantiism such as actively seeking out those who you think may have, or may soon attack you. There is nothing wrong with defending ones life. The term he used "Jesus Jihadis" was extremely poor taste and misleading of his intentions, at least what he wrote about providing security.

True violence never stops everybody from being violent, but do you think we could live in a society without police or military, which both have to rely on violence at times to accomplish their goals.

ed

[Eternal CB]

This is from this website: http://www.catholic.org/saints/saint.php?saint_id=418

These are the writings of St. Augustine of Hippo which I think apply to this topic.

[quote]
[b] Just war[/b]

See also: Just War[size=3]
Augustine agreed strongly with the conventional wisdom of the time, that Christians should be pacifists in their personal lives. But he routinely argued that this did not apply to the defense of innocents. In essence, the pursuit of peace must include the option of fighting to preserve it in the long-term. Such a war could not be preemptive, but defensive, to restore peace.[/size]
[size=3]
Thomas Aquinas, centuries later, used the authority of Augustine's arguments in an attempt to define the conditions under which a war could be just:[/size]
[list]
[*]First, war must occur for a good and just purpose rather than for self-gain or as an exercise of power.
[*]Second, just war must be waged by a properly instituted authority such as the state.
[*]Third, peace must be a central motive even in the midst of violence.
[/list]
[/quote]


Hope this answers your question. Peace

[Socrates]

[quote name='Maximilianus' timestamp='1318898533' post='2322948']
Kind of easy to look down on Christians providing security for themselves when you live the the relative safety of a nation that has the capacity to defend you.


Should Christians take up arms and seek vengeance, never. Should Christians be able to defend themselves, yes.
[/quote]
This.

Killing out of vengeance is wrong, but neither is it virtuous to stand by and watch your brothers and sisters in Christ get slaughtered and raped.

[BigJon16]

I don't know. Any type of killing, whether it be self defense, "justifiable", or what not, doesn't seem very Christ-like to me.

To me it seems like it would be holier and have a more greater outcome in the long run to be martyr for one's faith, than stay living purely by that fact that you killed the other guy first. Who do we venerate more, the security guard or the martyr? I cannot think of any security guards who are saints for just simply "doing there jobs", but I can think of many saints who were martyrs for their faith.

If God doesn't want you to die yet, then you won't. Like what happened to John Paul II.


Now, Max has a good point. This could just be based off of the ignorance of being someone who lives in safety of freedom. But I could never, in good conscience, carry a personal protection "device" on account that I could never ever force myself to use it. Even if my own life was at stake. As far as saving someone else's life, again I could never in good conscience take another person's life to save someone. What says that one person's life is more valuable than another's? Even if the person you should save is a close friend or relative.

Again this could be all ignorance. But the sacredness of all human life is not ignorant. And it is not ignorant to say that all human life is sacred.

Edited October 20, 2011 by BigJon16

[Lil Red]

in response to you Jon, I'll quote Socrates:


[quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1319070096' post='2323967']This.

Killing out of vengeance is wrong, but neither is it virtuous to stand by and watch your brothers and sisters in Christ get slaughtered and raped.[/quote]