How do you come up with so much material to blog with?…

AND the rebuilding is going on because we (the U.S.) bombed and destroyed it all.

As for “radical Islamists,” they are no different than fundamentalists of any religion.

I have struggled and struggled with these ideas. I have finally made the decision that it would be a sin for me to participate in this war and most likely any war.

As for the song “Imagine” by John Lennon and the reference to “imagine there’s no heaven,” he also “imagines” all sorts of other things. I believe the idea is to make us think about where our loyalties lie. He also talks about us all living in peace.

In reviewing the more recent posts in this thread, I noticed that I didn’t respond to some of your comments. Pardon me.

First, no pacifist would defend Saddam or any evil person. I believe Saddam received just what Jesus talked about (death by sword) because he lived a very violent life. His case is a prime example of the wrath that can be administered by the higher powers (Rom. 13). This is the function of government. This is not, however, my function as God’s redeemed creation in Christ Jesus.

You said, “If the barbarians are invading and going to kill our children, refusal to physically attempt to stop them makes us the killers of our children.” Interesting . . . that makes you, then, guilty of about a million and a half abortions that are taking place right here in America annually (I’m assuming you’ve never exerted violence to stop abortion). Did Saddam kill 1.5 million children annually?

Also, please refer to earlier posts about the use of the OT to defend a Christian’s use of violence. There are some valid questions that must be answered.

Concerning the purpose of Jesus, I truly do take issue with those who say His purpose is not ours. If Jesus did not come to show us how to live in every situation, then we have the heavy task of determining when and when not to follow the ethic of Jesus. And I wouldn’t even trust us with that task because we would (have) conveniently shelve the ethic of Jesus when it requires us to go counter-cultural. I’m sorry, I’m in with Jesus all the way. His way is my way . . . it’s the only way. First-century saints surely didn’t reason like you (Jesus had a special purpose different from ours). Stephen did not take up arms to defend himself against a personal, physical attack against his person. Stephen had the honor of dying just like the Master as he uttered, “Lord, do not hold this sin against them.” So, did Stephen also have a purpose higher than us “regular” Christians? Who else also had this exceptional calling to be like Jesus? Please pardon my sarcasm, but it’s just kind of strange to hear that we shouldn’t be like Jesus.

Yes, Paul did exercise his rights as a Roman citizen. How does this contradict with what pacifists believe? I see no violence in exercising one’s rights, but Paul never used violence when his rights were denied or physical attack came against his person. Please don’t misrepresent the pacifist position (and I don’t think you are). We don’t just go looking to be misused or abused. Paul, many times in the book of Acts, and Jesus in the Gospels both escaped physical confrontation by leaving town or disappearing. When the authorities did catch them, however, they never used violence to resist.

Concerning the Luke 22 passage, I don’t agree with your interpretation, but I will admit that in my estimation, this is the toughest text for the pacifist position. Here are a couple of my reasons to reject the self-preservation theory of Luke 22.

1. Early Christians didn’t understand Jesus to be promoting violence against physical attack (reference the above example). Nearly all of the apostles that witnessed the events Luke 22 died violent deaths and put up no physical resistance in their apprehension. Even sword-swinging Peter died a martyr’s death. This seems strange considering the belief that Luke 22 is blanket permission to use violence for self-defense.

2. In Jesus’ earlier commission of the twelve (Mat. 10, Luke 9), He made no mention of taking a sword (for physical protection). If, in the Luke 22 passage, He was now telling them that they would need physical protection, they sure missed his point (see point 1).

3. If Jesus were promoting violence in the cases of self-preservation or self-defense, two swords don’t seem sufficient for twelve disciples.

4. Additionally, Jesus’ final phrase “It is enough” is a point of interpretational controversy. Since this post is already too long, you guys can look it up for yourselves. The same phrase is found in the Septuagint, Deut.3:26, and the meaning is different.

5. I interpret the passage as a hyperbolic statement, the kind that Jesus often made to drive his point home (Mat. 5:29-30). The point in Luke 22 was to show that persecution institutional violence were imminent, and the disciples would be as desperate for physical protection as a man that sells his clothes for a sword.

Concerning your use of Luke 11, Jesus no more endorsed a strong man arming his palace than a stronger man coming along and overcoming him. If you use Luke 11 as support for arming yourself, you would likewise be saying that the one who disarms you is also supported by this very same text, since both are set forth as possibilities.

“Peace in a man’s palace or home is the result of being armed, not disarmed.” I disagree. Peace in a man’s palace is the result of knowing Jesus Christ, for your peace can be taken away from you. If you think you’re secure in your armed home, you’re mistaken. I hope time and not experience will help you see this. The only secure thing we have in this life is Jesus.

Also, I am not the same Steve as previous Steve.
Full Name is Steve Valentine.

Whether it is wrong for me to be a soldier or not and call Christ my savior is for Him to decide. It is by the grace of God that I am saved, and many times over He saved me physically in “this” war.

We speak of thing that we do not know, but God knows them and glory be to Him in that fact.