can the use of violence in order to bring about peace be justified?

fernie

can the use of violence be justified if it will bring about peace? this is from the the perspective of a christian!when the ten commandments condemn violence as do the roots of chistianity. is this cancelled out in the interest of the common good??

this part of a project im doing and i myself am confused on where one would stand in this situation.. any input would be greatly appreciated
thanks:)

PDN

Hi fernie, the Ten Commandments forbid killing (or murder, depending on the translation and interpretation) but they also deal with a lot of the issues that cause modern wars. For example, one nation covets another's resources and so they find an excuse to go to war.

The roots of Christianity, particularly the teaching of the New Testament such as the Sermon on the Mount, would appear to support more of a pacifist position.

I would describe myself as a Christian & as a conflicted pacifist! I generally disagree with war or violence, but see some occasions (eg fighting Hitler) where doing nothing would just evil to continue to grow.

You might be interested in listening to a podcast from a Christian pastor called Brian McClaren who wrote a letter to George Bush before the Iraq war where he deals pretty even-handedly with both sides of the debate. http://www.emergentvillage.com/podcast/brian-mclaren-discussing-peace-and-war

I was listening to it on my car radio via an FM transmitter and got so engrossed in it that I nearly committed my own act of violence and just avoided running over a garda checkpoint!

nozzferrahhtoo

Hello there, and welcome to the forum. In a strange series of events I only now realised this is your first post and it really is a thought provoking opener!

Having said that I am afraid the premise of your question has a problem and so your whole question is hard to answer. I am very much interested in this topic and would love to help you answer it but I am finding it difficult as it is currently presented.

My reson is this: The 10 commandments say nothing against violence. Remember all violence does not lead to death and the commandments only talk about death.

In some translations the commandment concerned is translated as:

1) You shall not murder
2) You shall not kill

Neither of these says anything about not lethal violence. Also one of them suggests killing is wrong but the other specifies "murder" and not all killing is considered "murder".

So in this context I think you have a good question but it needs some serious rephrasing to be answerable. What aspects of Christianity inform you that the commandments are against violence? Or do you think this question can be phrased without reference to the commandments.... or in another sense are the commandments the be all and end all of Christianity or do we need to view them in the light of Christian doctrine so that they can be interpretated, re-designed or even dismissed in the light of it?

Again a wonderful opening post and a whole lot to be discussed within it. Bring on the hot whisky and smoking jackets

Absolam

There's an enormous amount written on the subject of 'Just War' from a Christian perspective.. check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just_War for a pretty massive list of reading.

Joe1919

I answer that, In order for a war to be just, three things are necessary. First, the authority of the sovereign by whose command the war is to be waged. .........

Secondly, a just cause is required, ..................

Thirdly, it is necessary that the belligerents should have a rightful intention, so that they intend the advancement of good, or the avoidance of evil. .............

St.Thomas Aquinas on war.http://www.newadvent.org/summa/3040.htm

Phototoxin

Killing people is wrong irregardless.

While I hold this as an ideal i think that in weakness and out of concern for my family I would kill to defend them and possibly myself too. I think it would be easier if one was a beliber as you woudl be goign to a better place if you died.

Galvasean

In extreme cases violence as a counter measure surely must be justified.
Hypothetical example: Someone breaks into your house intent on killing your kids. You wrestle him to the ground, tie him up and call the police.
I doubt anyone would call your actions wrong.

nozzferrahhtoo

Phototoxin wrote: »

Killing people is wrong irregardless.

Can I ask a rather personal question then? Am I to take it you are not religious then or at least you do not hold to the bible?

The reason I ask being that god goes order killing in many situations, from the ravaging of small group of children all the way up to mass genocide.

So I assume you do not believe in god, because to espouse the view that killing is wrong no matter what is to question your own god and say he was wrong too. I assume also you would not think yourself better than god??

PDN

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

The reason I ask being that god goes order killing in many situations, from the ravaging of small group of children all the way up to mass genocide.

Which small group of children were ravaged by God's order? I hope we're not going to have a repeat of the atheist rewriting of the mauling (with no killing mentioned) of a gang of youths by a bear!

nozzferrahhtoo

You just did this in the other thread too. Pick a small thing in my post and attack it while ignoring the MAIN crux of my point. I _could_ defend this point I made as I was talking of times when god ordered killing of children and he does indeed do this.

However I will not bother as even if I was 100% wrong on that little part my main point still stands regardless. Therefore AGAIN I will not pander to thread hijacking and tangents. The point I wished to make still stands. If you want side discussions then PM me with them and I am, as always, more than happy to have discourse.

My point is clear. This god orders killing in many places. My question was, not to you I might add, are you a follower of this god or not because if you are and you say all killing is wrong then are you presuming to judge yourself more moral than your god who seems to feel its not always wrong.

EDIT: Actually ok fine, I am sure there is examples in the bible where small groups of children were ordered killed but I cant think of it off hand and have not the time to check it. I will take the critique that I should not make any comments unless I have the back up instantly to hand. I therefore amend my post to this (including spelling error fixes):

"The reason I ask being that god does order killing in many situations, from LARGE groups of children all the way up to mass genocide."

PDN

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

You just did this in the other thread too. Pick a small thing in my post and attack it while ignoring the MAIN crux of my point. I _could_ defend this point I made as I was talking of times when god ordered killing of children and he does indeed do this.

However I will not bother as even if I was 100% wrong on that little part my main point still stands regardless. Therefore AGAIN I will not pander to thread hijacking and tangents. The point I wished to make still stands. If you want side discussions then PM me with them and I am, as always, more than happy to have discourse.

My point is clear. This god orders killing in many places. My question was, not to you I might add, are you a follower of this god or not because if you are and you say all killing is wrong then are you presuming to judge yourself more moral than your god who seems to feel its not always wrong.

If you make a point in a PM then I will respond by PM. If you post something on a public forum and I disagree with it then I will respond on the public forum. That's how internet discussion boards work. Now stop getting snotty every time I disagree with you about something.

Imagine if everybody (even atheists who have a much lower IQ than the rest of the population) were allowed to slip little inaccuracies into their posts but no-one was allowed to challenge those inaccuracies because they were incidental to the main point, and therefore such challenges would drag the thread off topic. See what I did there? Not very nice, is it?

Now, as to your main point, it is quite correct - it would be absurd to say that God is against all killing when he commanded the Israelites to obliterate entire cities.

nozzferrahhtoo

PDN wrote: »

Imagine if everybody (even atheists who have a much lower IQ than the rest of the population) were allowed to slip little inaccuracies into their posts but no-one was allowed to challenge those inaccuracies because they were incidental to the main point, and therefore such challenges would drag the thread off topic. See what I did there? Not very nice, is it?

Actually, since you insist on continuing with this, you did not slip any point in there that I disagree with but that is because of your punctuation error. You did not indicate you meant to say ALL atheists have a lower IQ you just reffered to the ones that do by saying essentially “Even those that do”. You said “Even atheists who” do. This is perfectly accurate.

However a pedantic point as I get what you are saying and see your point.

Again though I have no interest in pursuing it. I have amended my post above as you can see from the edit, so back on topic we go and it appears we are in agreement on it.

In summary, I see no way a Christian/Catholic can say killing is always wrong as to do so is to assume to be more moral than god.

PDN

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

However a pedantic point as I get what you are saying and see your point.

Being an exponent of the art of pedantry I can't complain that you have demonstrated the truth of Scripture. "He who lives by the sword will die by the sword" (Matthew 26:52 - and, may I say, a great segway back into our topic!)

In summary, I see no way a Christian/Catholic can say killing is always wrong as to do so is to assume to be more moral than god.

Well, not quite. Christians would understand that the world is fundamentally changed for ever with the coming of Jesus Christ. So it is possible to acknowledge that God ordered bloodshed in the Old Testament, but to believe that it is no longer possible for there to be any situation today where killing is justified.

So I would not be so quick to condemn absolute Christian pacifists for being inconsistent.

My own position, as a conflicted pacifist, is that I generally abhor violence and would seek non-violent solutions to problems, but I see absolute pacifism in all circumstances as an abdication of responsibility.

For example, when Ghandi advised women not to resist rapists - I think that was just giving a green light to men to do what they want.

I remember one occasion, a few years ago, when two men tried to steal my car while my daughter was still in the vehicle. My response was immediate and most definitely not pacifist - and I still believe that was the moral course of action. Anything else would have been to abdicate my responsibility as a father.

I doubt if I could ever deliberately kill someone under any circumstances. I can think of several things worth dying for, but i can't think of anything that would be worth killing for.

nozzferrahhtoo

In this I think we agree in just about everything you say. I don’t think ALL scripture is true, nor do I think you need to believe in a god in order to find truth IN it. I cringe when other people who do not think there is any reason to think there is a god therefore dismiss even bothering to read and learn from the bible. It’s a WONDERFUL book. I even re-read the entire New Testament in my free time in a hotel room in Bavaria while spending last New Years eve there.

Aside from that I can disagree with little that you just said. However I will still disagree that, even if the coming of Jesus HAD changed things the fact is that there are situations, such as that before the coming of Christ, in which god thinks violence and killing is justified. Now maybe we will never get BACK to such scenarios, but we do not know the future and maybe we will.

Suffice to say such scenarios DO exist in the eyes of god therefore to say as the poster did above:

Killing people is wrong irregardless.

Is wrong in the eyes of that god. There ARE situations in which killing is right in this gods eyes. Saying things are different now and we may never REACH one of those scenarios may be entirely accurate, but such conceptual scenarios DO exist. The difference between the two things in that last sentence may be subtle but I think highly important.

However a philosophy of avoiding such killing at all costs until finally there is no other route open to one is one I would happily join you in and maybe it is that which the user above intended to espouse but phrased it badly…. Which is why I posted requesting his clarification