Yes, Julian, it IS clear that the New Testament is a pacifist document. Jesus did say that he came to bring 'not peace but a sword', but if you compare this with everything else he said, it is obvious that he was speaking metaphorically.
Peter did cut off the ear of a soldier who came to arrest Jesus, but he was rebuked by Jesus who healed the wound.
"But if a precedent is indeed being set that if you rule a country and send tank brigades to murder large numbers of civilian dissidents, you will see your armor bombed to smithereens, I can’t see what is wrong with that."
I can see two things wrong with that.
First, the bombing campaign is bound to kill some civilians: they always do. How can you then claim that its purpose is to save civilian lives? It is an absurd concept. How can it be morally justified for A to kill B in the course of stopping C from killing D, when B and C are equally innocent victims?
Second, the tanks being bombed contain human beings. Just because they are soldiers, have they forfeited the right to life? If they have willingly and knowingly obeyed illegal orders to harm unarmed civilians, they are morally culpable and have committed a crime. But I suspect most are not in this category. What gives the attacking powers the right to take their lives?
Gates may be saner than most Republicans, but he is not 100 per cent sane if he really believes that Iran has a current nuclear weapons program. Does he, or is this just politics?
© 2025 All Rights Reserved
Yes, Julian, it IS clear that the New Testament is a pacifist document. Jesus did say that he came to bring 'not peace but a sword', but if you compare this with everything else he said, it is obvious that he was speaking metaphorically.
Peter did cut off the ear of a soldier who came to arrest Jesus, but he was rebuked by Jesus who healed the wound.
Apologies for mistyping. B and C in the penultimate paragraph should be B and D.
Juan, you say
"But if a precedent is indeed being set that if you rule a country and send tank brigades to murder large numbers of civilian dissidents, you will see your armor bombed to smithereens, I can’t see what is wrong with that."
I can see two things wrong with that.
First, the bombing campaign is bound to kill some civilians: they always do. How can you then claim that its purpose is to save civilian lives? It is an absurd concept. How can it be morally justified for A to kill B in the course of stopping C from killing D, when B and C are equally innocent victims?
Second, the tanks being bombed contain human beings. Just because they are soldiers, have they forfeited the right to life? If they have willingly and knowingly obeyed illegal orders to harm unarmed civilians, they are morally culpable and have committed a crime. But I suspect most are not in this category. What gives the attacking powers the right to take their lives?
Gates may be saner than most Republicans, but he is not 100 per cent sane if he really believes that Iran has a current nuclear weapons program. Does he, or is this just politics?
Nine years have past, this is the start of the 10th year. Juan's text is correct, his headline is misleading.