[wallinbl]

Base your answer not on the history of Christian behavior, but on your knowledge of the teachings of Christ. Yes, the Old Testament had a bit of violence, but it seems when you look at Christ's words and teachings that there isn't even a hint of justification for war, and in some places, there are indirect statements against war.

While St Augustine managed to develop a doctrine of just war, others have found the exact opposite. For example, Ghandi was known to have spent several hours every day reading the New Testament because he was impressed by its moral teaching, and wrote in his autobiography:

The Old Testament put me to sleep, but the New Testament produced a different impression, especially the Sermon on the Mount which went straight to my heart. I compared it with the Gita. The verses, 'But I say unto you, that ye resist no evil; but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if any man takes away thy coat let him have thy cloak too', delighted me beyond measure. My young mind tried to unify the teaching of the Gita, the Light of Asia and the Sermon on the Mount. That renunciation was the highest form of religion, appealed to me greatly.

As a Christian, it confuses me that the "religious right" are war mongers and the religion hating liberals are the ones trying to help the poor (I know, not all liberals hate religion, but when the right uses religion to go nutso, the left starts to attack religion as part of their attack on the right). I can't fathom how Bush can claim Christianity guides him when he goes to war incessantly and wants to erect a wall between us and those pesky Mexicans. I'm sure God told him to keep those Mexicans away from our wealth because God put them down there in poverty because He didn't like them and doesn't want them stealing our good fortune of having been born in a wealthy country.

[Obi Wan's Ghost]

Christianity isn't compatible with war but Jesus wasn't a Christian or trying to start a peaceful religion or anything new. He was trying to be the Messiah which in Jewish tradition is a leader who liberates Israel from outside armies and re-establishes the bloodline of David to the throne of Israel. In the context of Roman rule it would make sense of there was some violence or plots to cause trouble to the Romans.

The Christianity we know that came after Jesus was a spiritual movement that reached beyond Jewish culture to other people for political reasons = more people than Jews were needed to rebel. The Romans eventually couldn't contain the movement and absorbed it and remolded it into the godman Jesus not unlike Dionysis, Adonis, Osiris, Mithras, the Buddha etc

The Romans had decided one religion for one empire was better for law and order than secularism. It worked out well, until the Arabs had the same idea and ripped off Judaism and Christianity.

[Dakar]

It's incompatible with being the aggressor, but not with defending one's self.

[Kevin]

Why is it most threads about Christians or Christianity are started by people that are neither?

I always hear people complain about Christians shoving Christianity down people's throats.

But very few Christianity threads in here are started by Christians.


And BTW, God did make provisions of War.

I Jesus himself said not to be concerned with wars. That they were just birth pangs.

[Kr0nos]

I would say that Christianity is incompatible with war and murder.

It isn't incompatible with self-defense though. It just depends on where you draw the line.

I think this is what a lot of right wing warmongers and neo-con hawks are playing on. They don't see their wars as acts of agression, but as justified 'self-defense'.

This is why setting up a dualistic world view, and proping up 'the other' as an enemy is so paramount to their ideology. Everything hinges on setting themselves up as the 'victim' of an 'agression' (WMDs in Iraq sound familiar), so they can justify their actions as 'self-defense'

The bad part is, Muslim fundamentalism and extremism is very real (as (most likely) shown by the incident in London today). Lies become conjecture, conjecture becomes a rumor and rumor becomes fact served with a side-order of entertainment.

And so the spin begins…

[Dakar]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Why is it most threads about Christians or Christianity are started by people that are neither?

Because they tend to have the most questions because they don't understand the concepts?

[Kevin]

BTW I would say the choices given in said poll were boderline trollish. Making me believe that this thread wasn't posted in seriousness, but done so to inflame.

[Dakar]

Originally Posted by Kevin

BTW I would say the choices given in said poll were boderline trollish. Making me believe that this thread wasn't posted in seriousness, but done so to inflame.

Yes, they appear to be PacHead quality.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Dakar

Because they tend to have the most questions because they don't understand the concepts?

I would say yes, but most threads are flames, or threads making statements about Christians.

He was asking a question, but look at the poll options.

Black and white

Originally Posted by Dakar

Yes, they appear to be PacHead quality.

But pachead isn't a Christian...

*shrug* And I agree Pac goes over the top a lot.

[Dork.]

This is an intersting topic to think about. As Kr0nos states, christianity is not necessarily incompatible with self-defense. And we need to ask ourselves what must be done if there is a truly evil force in the world, bent on destruction? Should we not try to fight it at all? At the risk of invoking Godwin's law, would it really have benefitted the world if we hadn't stood up to the Nazis in WW II? (Remember that if there's one thing that all the Christian sects are good at, it's defining a sense of absolute evil and railing against relativism. So, for the purpose of this discussion, lets just assume that Christians know evil when they see it...)

I re-read the Sermon on the Mount, and I don't read it as a blanket renunciation of all conflict. But I do read it as a renunciation of most of the common justifications for war, including territorial expansion, economic gain, and revenge. Revenge, in partcular, is repudiated here. If someone injures you, your first response should not be to strike back, but to keep presenting yourself to that person in an attempt at reconciliation, even at the risk of being injured again. Conflict ought to be the absolute last resort, and should always take a back seat to reconciliation when appropriate. Reconciliation, however, takes two parties to accomplish, and if the other side isn't interested, what are you supposed to do? The sermon is unclear on this point.

The line "Judge not, lest ye be judged" also appears here, but again, I don't view this as a renunciation of all of our judgements against other people. Read further into the passage, and you see that if you do judge another person, you will eventually be judged be the same measure. So you'd better be sure that you're honest with yourself and evaluating the situation fairly, and that you can hold yourself up to the same standard you use to judge other people.

[Shaddim]

Yeah, I like how they complain about "Christians only seeing black and white", and then we see a thread like this.

Classic.

[wallinbl]

Originally Posted by Kevin

BTW I would say the choices given in said poll were boderline trollish. Making me believe that this thread wasn't posted in seriousness, but done so to inflame.

What is inflammatory about the question? What makes you feel from my post that I am not a Christian? Am I not a Christian if I am questioning the behavior of Christians? Certainly, I should avoid judging others, but that does not mean that I have no questions regarding what appears to be accepted practice within Christianity.

How does turning the other cheek and and giving your cloak reconcile with war? I don't think it does. I think war is a failure to trust in God to take care of your needs and trying to take your needs into your own hands.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Why is it most threads about Christians or Christianity are started by people that are neither?

Probably the same reason most threads about Muslims or Islam are also started by people who are neither. Strangely, though, you don't seem to have as much of a problem with that.

[Stradlater]

Crusade much?

[Zeeb]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Why is it most threads about Christians or Christianity are started by people that are neither?

I always hear people complain about Christians shoving Christianity down people's throats.

But very few Christianity threads in here are started by Christians.


And BTW, God did make provisions of War.

I Jesus himself said not to be concerned with wars. That they were just birth pangs.

Read the post. The original poster claims to be a Christian, so why are you saying this now? You're trying to spin this to be a Christian vs. Everyone else thread arent you? Then you get to rant about how everyone hates Christians and Christian values.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by Chuckit

Probably the same reason most threads about Muslims or Islam are also started by people who are neither. Strangely, though, you don't seem to have as much of a problem with that.

Please, quite being purposely obtuse.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by Stradlater

Crusade much?

and you pull out something from 800 years ago, good job! <golf clap>

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by MacNStein

Please, quite being purposely obtuse.

I'm not sure what you mean. Lots of atheists post threads here bashing Christianity. Lots of Christians here post threads bashing Islam. If you're going to object to one, I think you should object to the other. Otherwise, you're just complaining that other people don't share your opinion. How am I being obtuse?

[wallinbl]

Originally Posted by Stradlater

Crusade much?

Sure. The fact that they happened don't define what is in the Bible. People generally seem to separate Islam from blowing up buildings, but in that case, it's not the majority that are blowing up the buildings. Unfortunately, with Christianity, it seems to be the majority that are going to war.

To make use of the rather annoying WWJD thing, does it really make sense to you that Jesus would have invaded Iraq? It doesn't really to me.

Please note that I'm not using this thread or the Iraq/Mexico examples as a means to bash Bush - they're simply current examples of behavior that has existed all along (crusades included).

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by Chuckit

I'm not sure what you mean. Lots of atheists post threads here bashing Christianity. Lots of Christians here post threads bashing Islam. If you're going to object to one, I think you should object to the other. Otherwise, you're just complaining that other people don't share your opinion. How am I being obtuse?

Yes, you know what I mean.

The news of the day is about Militant Islam, and the terror they spread. Thus, we post more topics about them. Show me where Christians are committing such acts of terrorism?


<waits for Chuckit to pull out some dusty article about abortion clinic bombings in 1992>

[wallinbl]

Originally Posted by Dork.

Reconciliation, however, takes two parties to accomplish, and if the other side isn't interested, what are you supposed to do? The sermon is unclear on this point.

Turn the other cheek. Give them your cloak.


It's not something that most are comfortable thinking about, but Jesus never promised physical safety. In fact, we were told the opposite, and Paul was beaten and jailed many times. What was his response? It wasn't violent or militaristic, and it wasn't motivated out of self preservation. Most of the teachings are about selflessness, yet war is rather selfish - it's a way of saying that I am more valuable than you and I will take your life if necessary to protect the fact that I am more important than you.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by wallinbl

Turn the other cheek. Give them your cloak.


It's not something that most are comfortable thinking about, but Jesus never promised physical safety. In fact, we were told the opposite, and Paul was beaten and jailed many times. What was his response? It wasn't violent or militaristic, and it wasn't motivated out of self preservation. Most of the teachings are about selflessness, yet war is rather selfish - it's a way of saying that I am more valuable than you and I will take your life if necessary to protect the fact that I am more important than you.

and sell your cloak and buy a sword? That has no meaning for you?

The entire message is about balance, not mindless pacifism.

[ironknee]

Originally Posted by Kevin

And BTW, God did make provisions of War.

Originally Posted by Kevin

I Jesus

WRONG...you are not jesus

Originally Posted by Kevin

himself said not to be concerned with wars. That they were just birth pangs.

guess who is parroting the administration?

[ironknee]

Originally Posted by Kevin

BTW I would say the choices given in said poll were boderline trollish. Making me believe that this thread wasn't posted in seriousness, but done so to inflame.

can't...answer...poll...christians...are....for... peace...wait...war...wait...overload....overload.. ..

[Dork.]

Originally Posted by wallinbl

Most of the teachings are about selflessness, yet war is rather selfish - it's a way of saying that I am more valuable than you and I will take your life if necessary to protect the fact that I am more important than you.

I disagree. When you resort to war, you're saying (or, at least, the soldiers who are waging war are saying) that your cause is more important than the enemies', and your cause is more important than their lives given in support of a false cause. When you make a statement like that, you better be sure your side is, in fact, the correct one.

The sermon is saying that if there is any peaceful resolution to the conflict at all, both parties must persue it, or both parties risk damnation. But if there is a side that is Evil, and refuses to pursue any resolution short of total victory on the battlefield, then what do you do? Again, the sermon is unclear. It says you should do whatever you can to attain a resolution with your brother, but does not make a statement about when your brother is too pig-headed to make a resolution in the first place. It seems to me that if this sermon is read to mean total pacifism at all costs, the reader would succumb to the first Truly Evil foe that came along. And I don't think that's the point.

[Monique]

Of course it is compatible with war. Aren't the people in the Bush administration, the majority of Republicans in both houses are all Christians.

And as one of you said remember the Crusades.

And the fact that Popes conducted wars and were selling indulgences to become richer that tells you that those Christians never read the Bible or did not care.

And remember a guy called Henry the VIII that killed some of his wives, he was a Christian.

Remember the 113 years war....

[besson3c]

The real question here is: is Christian Slater a Christian?

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by besson3c

The real question here is: is Christian Slater a Christian?

Not really, he's actually closer to pagan.

[Spliffdaddy]

Originally Posted by Monique

Of course it is compatible with war. Aren't the people in the Bush administration, the majority of Republicans in both houses are all Christians.(snip)

The majority of Democrats are also Christians.

As are the majority of American citizens.

[voodoo]

Yes, Christianity is fundamentally incompatible with war. That is the simple and true answer. Christianity is a way of life and war is not part of it. Simple as that.

V

[wallinbl]

Originally Posted by MacNStein

The entire message is about balance, not mindless pacifism.

I'd argue that fighting is the 'mindless' answer, not pacifism. What's so mindful about saying "we disagree, so I'm going to kick your ass"?

[wallinbl]

Originally Posted by Dork.

I disagree. When you resort to war, you're saying (or, at least, the soldiers who are waging war are saying) that your cause is more important than the enemies', and your cause is more important than their lives given in support of a false cause. When you make a statement like that, you better be sure your side is, in fact, the correct one.

What the heck is "the correct one" and who gets to decide that?

[wallinbl]

Originally Posted by MacNStein

and sell your cloak and buy a sword? That has no meaning for you?

The entire message is about balance, not mindless pacifism.

Shouldn't we have seen some kind of example between Jesus, Paul and the disciples? I just don't see any killing or war in there and they were living in a time when their land was occupied by a foreign army and they could be beaten and jailed for their beliefs.

[Spliff]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Why is it most threads about Christians or Christianity are started by people that are neither?

I always hear people complain about Christians shoving Christianity down people's throats.

But very few Christianity threads in here are started by Christians.

Well, if they're anti-theists, then they probably feel an obligation to challenge Christians on their beliefs which they see as false and irrational. In the same way, supporters of the Iraq war attack what they see as irrational or flawed thinking in the anti-war groups. Unfortunately, intellectual challenge and debate of religious ideology often turns into persecution which doesn't do anyone any good.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by wallinbl

Shouldn't we have seen some kind of example between Jesus, Paul and the disciples? I just don't see any killing or war in there and they were living in a time when their land was occupied by a foreign army and they could be beaten and jailed for their beliefs.

Ummm... they were, and they were killed.

So, you are refuting the Just War doctrine established by the early church fathers?

[Athens]

any religion can be twisted and used for good or bad, peace and war. Nothing special about Christians.

[Dork.]

Originally Posted by wallinbl

What the heck is "the correct one" and who gets to decide that?

That's the fundamental question that's plagued religions for centuries. Christians believe in an objective sense of right and wrong, of a Good side and an Evil side. Two people can have diffferent attitudes about the world and different world views, but at the end of the day they'll ultimately be judged by how they treat other people against this objective sense. It may seem subjective to us, while we're in the midst of it, but Christians belive it's an objective standard. And I suppose the Big Guy gets to decide.

[wallinbl]

Originally Posted by MacNStein

So, you are refuting the Just War doctrine established by the early church fathers?

Yes, I would refute it, and mentioned as much in the original post. I believe I am not alone in that refutation. See Martin Luther King. See Leo Tolstoy. See Ghandi. The early church fathers are in the same position as you and I - they are men trying to interpret. Augustine had many insightful words, but also some that are no longer used by the church. The same is true of Aquinas, Luther, Calvin, etc.

Originally Posted by Matthew26:50-52

And Jesus said unto him, Friend, wherefore art thou come? Then came they, and laid hands on Jesus, and took him. And, behold, one of them which were with Jesus stretched out [his] hand, and drew his sword, and struck a servant of the high priest's, and smote off his ear. Then said Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword

Originally Posted by Matthew5:38-41

You have heard that it was said, "An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth." But I say to you, Do not resist one who is evil. But if anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also; and if anyone would sue you and take your coat, let him have your cloak as well; and if any one forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles.

[wallinbl]

Originally Posted by Dork.

That's the fundamental question that's plagued religions for centuries. Christians believe in an objective sense of right and wrong, of a Good side and an Evil side. Two people can have diffferent attitudes about the world and different world views, but at the end of the day they'll ultimately be judged by how they treat other people against this objective sense. It may seem subjective to us, while we're in the midst of it, but Christians belive it's an objective standard. And I suppose the Big Guy gets to decide.

Yes, but given that subjectiveness, you can't very well go killing other people.

[wallinbl]

Originally Posted by MacNStein

The entire message is about balance, not mindless pacifism.

One more thing on the "mindless pacifism" thing. You have to take yourself out of the current context of being attacked by terrorists and whatnot. Most of the attacks are because we act like d!cks and go around the world screwing with people. If we were to act in a more courteous and respectful manner, people would be less inclined to attack us. If we behaved as if we were working toward mutual gain instead of simply walking around with a big stick and trying to ensure our own greatness and wealth, we'd have fewer enemies and fewer reasons to fight.

Would you rather pay a little more for gasoline and invest a little more in alternative fuels or just have a bunch of people die and have cheaper gas? Yes, it's a gross oversimplification, but it also rings true - the things we do to protect our oil interests are making others pissed enough to attack. The result is that people are dying over the price of gasoline.

My point here is that pacifism wouldn't simply be letting people kick our ass - it would be not making people want to kick our ass. Yes, there are still jerks in the world, but there would be fewer if we'd all quit being jerks too.

[Millennium]

Part of the problem here is that the question is loaded. It treats "warmonger" and "incompatible with war" as a stark duality, with nothing in between.

Jesus had a lot to say about peace, all of it positive. Jesus didn't have all that much to say about war, but from other teachings of his, it's fairly easy to extrapolate what his attitudes about war must have been: it's all negative. I doubt these statements would cause all that much controversy.

However, Jesus also seemed to believe that war was inevitable. Consider Matthew 10:34, where he said "I came not to bring peace, but a sword." Jesus preached peace, but he knew that his faith would inevitably be involved in conflicts and even wars. Given enough time, any differences between people will do that, and religion is no different.

So the question becomes: what happens when a religion which teaches peace is nonetheless forced into combat? Even mentioning Luke 22 is likely to get me skewered here, but let us consider it:

Originally Posted by Luke 22

36 He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one.
37It is written: 'And he was numbered with the transgressors'; and I tell you that this must be fulfilled in me. Yes, what is written about me is reaching its fulfillment."
38 The disciples said, "See, Lord, here are two swords." "That is enough," he replied.

The translation of verse 38 is, to say the least, controversial. Some more modern translations believe that by saying "That is enough" (or whatever the Greek equivalent was), he had become angry with his disciples for getting overzealous, which certainly seems incompatible with war. Yet Jesus did speak of buying swords: why?

A more literal reading of Luke 22:38 would imply that Jesus thought two swords was sufficient for his group. But the question then remains: what purpose would those swords serve? Two swords -or two of almost any other kind of weapon, for that matter- is not enough to fight on any kind of scale. An invading force with only two swords would be massacred in those days, and in modern times it would be even more hopelessly outmatched. Jesus' sanity and benevolence have often brought into question, but very few would call him stupid enough to try and raise an army on only two weapons.

Whether you use a literal of figurative reading, therefore, these swords were pretty clearly not meant for an invading force. Two swords wouldn't even be enough to repel any kind of large-scale invasion, but with both types of readings, Jesus seems to be insistent on not having any more than that. Clearly his sword talk can't have been about war. This is where the concept of self-defense comes into play. Two swords cannot fight a war, but they could repel smaller-scale attacks by bandits, assassins, and -with a lot of luck- perhaps even a mob. This has to have been what Jesus was talking about, because frankly, what else can two swords do?

Given this, it seems to me that Christianity's attitude towards war can be summed up as follows: "Hate war, and avoid it whenever you can, because nothing good comes of it. But there will be times when you have no choice but to fight; prepare for those times, and do not be afraid to act when they come." A more succinct -though less precise- way of putting it might be "Hate war, but do not fear it."

[Dork.]

Given this, it seems to me that Christianity's attitude towards war can be summed up as follows: "Hate war, and avoid it whenever you can, because nothing good comes of it. But there will be times when you have no choice but to fight; prepare for those times, and do not be afraid to act when they come." A more succinct -though less precise- way of putting it might be "Hate war, but do not fear it."

Bravo! That was much more eloquent then anything I've tried to come up with.

[wallinbl]

Originally Posted by Millennium

However, Jesus also seemed to believe that war was inevitable.

Inevitable does not mean acceptable. It is inevitable that will will continue to sin, but it is not acceptable.

Consider Matthew 10:34, where he said "I came not to bring peace, but a sword." Jesus preached peace, but he knew that his faith would inevitably be involved in conflicts and even wars.

From Ephesians 6:
Put on the whole armor of God, that you may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil. For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this age, against spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places.

So, to your verse, I'll ask you whether the sword is for battle with the flesh or something else.

what else can two swords do?

Kill animals for food.

Given this, it seems to me that Christianity's attitude towards war can be summed up as follows: "Hate war, and avoid it whenever you can, because nothing good comes of it. But there will be times when you have no choice but to fight; prepare for those times, and do not be afraid to act when they come." A more succinct -though less precise- way of putting it might be "Hate war, but do not fear it."

Let me again go back to the rather trite WWJD - do you see Jesus going into war, using weaponry to kill and mame? If you have some resistance to this thought, think about why - many I have spoken with seem to resist the idea of Jesus taking up arms, but don't seem to want to reconcile that with their own idea that taking up arms is okay. If we're to follow Jesus and do as he did, then shouldn't our opinion of him waging war be the same as our opinion of our own selves waging war?

[wallinbl]

Originally Posted by Millennium

Given this, it seems to me that Christianity's attitude towards war can be summed up as follows: "Hate war, and avoid it whenever you can, because nothing good comes of it. But there will be times when you have no choice but to fight; prepare for those times, and do not be afraid to act when they come." A more succinct -though less precise- way of putting it might be "Hate war, but do not fear it."

Do you think that jives with Matthew 5:38-41?

You have heard that it was said, "An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth." But I say to you, Do not resist one who is evil. But if anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also; and if anyone would sue you and take your coat, let him have your cloak as well; and if any one forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles.

You're saying "do not be afraid to act when they come" and Jesus is saying "do not resist one who is evil" and sounds like he is saying to go beyond being cooperative.

[wallinbl]

The problem with war is that it puts man's own physical safety ahead of the moral law given by God. It's a way for man to say "I know you told me not to do those things, but these guys over here are scaring me and if I don't kill them first, I think they're going to kill me." We're not given any directive that says that's okay - we're told not to kill and we're told to cooperate with those that insult us, beat us, enslave us, and so on.

Is it okay to steal when you're hungry?

[Gamoe]

I've come to believe that many people who claim to be religious and stand for certain beliefs, ignore them when they are inconvenient. I do not believe that the acts of most political leaders in the world are the acts of people who truly stand for the beliefs they claim to.

If we the people, and our political leaders did act as Christians and otherwise religious people, there would not be so much man-made suffering, violence and death in our world.

[undotwa]

Originally Posted by wallinbl

Base your answer not on the history of Christian behavior, but on your knowledge of the teachings of Christ. Yes, the Old Testament had a bit of violence, but it seems when you look at Christ's words and teachings that there isn't even a hint of justification for war, and in some places, there are indirect statements against war.

While St Augustine managed to develop a doctrine of just war, others have found the exact opposite. For example, Ghandi was known to have spent several hours every day reading the New Testament because he was impressed by its moral teaching, and wrote in his autobiography:


As a Christian, it confuses me that the "religious right" are war mongers and the religion hating liberals are the ones trying to help the poor (I know, not all liberals hate religion, but when the right uses religion to go nutso, the left starts to attack religion as part of their attack on the right). I can't fathom how Bush can claim Christianity guides him when he goes to war incessantly and wants to erect a wall between us and those pesky Mexicans. I'm sure God told him to keep those Mexicans away from our wealth because God put them down there in poverty because He didn't like them and doesn't want them stealing our good fortune of having been born in a wealthy country.

In the Christian tradition, a war was only considered 'just' when it was for defensive purposes. War itself is morally wrong, because it involves the killing of innocents. Thus war can only be legitimised when one is trying to defend innocent life. This idea can be extended to fit other scenarios, such as preemptive strikes or an attempt to correct a grave public evil. Wikipedia summarises the Augustinian idea of the just war very well:

In modern language, these rules hold that to be just, a war must meet the following criteria before the use of force (Jus ad bellum):
Just Cause: Force may be used only to correct a grave public evil (e.g., a massive violation of the basic rights of whole populations) or in defense;
St Augustine categorised just cause into three elements that justified warfare
defending against an external attack
recapturing things taken
punishing people who have done wrong
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 override the presumption against the use of force, the injustice suffered by one party must significantly outweigh that suffered by the other;
Legitimate Authority: Only duly constituted public authorities may use deadly force or wage war;
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;
Proportionality: The overall destruction expected from the use of force must be outweighed by the good to be achieved.[6]
Last Resort: Force may be used only after all peaceful and viable alternatives have been seriously tried and exhausted.
Note that these are only the most typical conditions cited by just war theorists; some (such as Brian Orend) omit Comparative Justice, seeing it as fertile ground for exploitation by bellicose regimes.

[undotwa]

Originally Posted by wallinbl

For example, Ghandi was known to have spent several hours every day reading the New Testament because he was impressed by its moral teaching, and wrote in his autobiography

Ghandi was a relativist. He is not Christian or an expert in Christian moral theology. He is not the definitive source for understanding Christian teaching on war.

[justinbaby]

My Catholic faith (semi-retired) does not tell me to roll over and die to defend one self. There ARE just wars. WWII comes to mind. Fighting fundamentalists Muslims trying to kill me is another. Get real. Scriptures are a guide, not an ultimatum!

[mojo2]

Consistent pacifism would have to eliminate the police, not just the military

[...]

Romans 13:3-4 grants governments the right to use force to restrain and punish evil

[...]

Is it right for a Christian to fight in a war?

http://www.desiringgod.org/library/t...ept11/war.html