The Old Testament has conflicting views on the war from the New Testament.
The Old Testament book of exodus tells the story of how Israel escaped from slavery in Egypt. ‘I will sing to the lord, because he has won a glorious victory; he has thrown the horses and riders into the sea. The lord is my strong defender; he is the one who has saved me. He is my God, and I will praise him, my fathers god, and I will sing about his greatness. The lord is a warrior; the lord is his name Exodus 15: 1-3
God is described as a warrior, this was one of the major ways in which the ancient Israelites thought of god. He was called ‘the god of hosts’ (‘armies’). The people they conquered- men women and children- were to be completely exterminated. The Israelites believed this was what God wanted. However this does not seem to fit with the God of love whom Jesus taught people to call Father. Perhaps these stories tell us more about the beliefs of the people at the time than they do about God. The commandments in the Old Testament also said ‘thou shalt not kill’
In the New Testament Jesus taught peace and the love of enemies ‘if anyone slaps you on the right check, let them slap your left cheek too.’ Jesus tells us to love our enemies Jesus taught about love and caring for others. The Christian response to violence is not to meet it with violence but to offer a demonstration of the power love, or turning the other cheek. Violence only breeds more violence. Revenge is not good and is not a reason for going to war.
The Roman Catholic Church condemns total warfare bu use of nuclear weapons, however as a last resort and provided that other efforts at peace have failed then nations cannot be denied the right to self defence. Nations cant dominate another nation but only defend themselves. They should also remember that their intention in going to war is to win peace.
With all these teachings thrust upon modern day Christians, its difficult for the them to reach a clear belief on war and conflict. Christians as a single society cannot have a singular belief on the subject as I believe that its up to the individual to decide where they stand. How they interpret, receive the teachings and also their own personal beliefs dictate where they stand on the subject. I have simply explained the different categories where Christians could stand. Its up to Christians themselves to decide their own beliefs.
AO2
A Christian could apply the beliefs I recently mentioned in A01 through all different means.
The New Testament tells us many different views on how we should treat our enemies, and the Church and Christians can use different biblical views to use in their opinions of war. Most Christians fall into one of three opinions of war: to be a pacifist, to be a conscientious objector or to be a fighter.
The pacifist members of the Church community use examples from the bible to support their views such as turn the other cheek, overcome evil with good – Paul and the parable of ‘The Unforgiving Servant’. From these example pacifists say that Jesus taught and told us that we should love our enemies and not retaliate, so in turn this means that we should not go to war because by going to war we are hating our enemies and not making them our friends, as we can only lose our enemies by making friends of them. Pacifists can carry out their beliefs in ways such as protest marches or even give talks in their local communities in order to make their feelings known.
The conscientious objectors are people who want to be a good citizen but do not want to fight. So the people that fall into this group would use examples from the bible such as Paul’s teaching of being a good citizen, but also the same as the pacifists about turning the other cheek and overcoming evil with good. Because conscientious objectors believe this, they have the best of both worlds, as they do follow Paul’s teaching of being a good citizen as they support their country at war using methods other than fighting but they also follow Jesus’ teaching of loving our enemies, because they are not actually fighting with or harming their enemies. This belief is going to have an influence on the believer, as they will not fight in a war. However, this believer can still be involver in the war but as an aid, driver of a medical vehicle. So they are part of a war, but instead of killing, they may be saving lives, so they are not involved in the violence, which they strongly disagree in.
The fighter members of the church use stories from the bible about what Jesus did to try and prove that the bible supports their views. One of the main stories from the New Testament that they use is the story about Jesus in the temple, as he did not love his enemies, but he did this in order to protect the weak and vulnerable and to uphold good. Fighters also follow Jesus’ teaching of how we should follow what we believe in and being a good citizen and so they believe that it is correct to fight so that they can fulfil these teachings they believe that it is all right to use violence as a form of self-defence; they will on attack if they are threatened or attacked. Roman Catholics may go to war and then confess to free him of his sins, but all these different views on fighting in war or using violence, are all opinionated, whether the Christian thinks that it is right to use there violence.
Single members and groups within the Church believe their own views, but what can the Church do to incorporate everyone’s views and bring everyone together? This can prove to be a difficult task as what one group such as the pacifists believe, is not the same as what the fighters believe. The Church does not want to be seen as promoting violence as this is not what anyone wants, but it also doesn’t want to stop Christians from being good citizens and not supporting their countries. Many Churches use all different points of views and support each of their arguments with references from the Bible to show that Jesus supported all different kinds of viewpoints about war and that although single members of the Church are entitled to their own opinions, the Church as a community should support all of them and follow God, as he is the father of all, tries to support all and challenges all at the same time.
As I have said before, there are different ways in fighting wars, other than violence and conflict. Christians look at real life situations, which can influence their belief. Martin Luther King was a powerful black man who fought the rights of black men. He believed that using violence was wrong, so he used his words and thoughts to fight his war. He used no violence and no weapon, as he fought by protesting, getting many people to parade down streets, meet and talk to get there belief that black men and women should have the same rights as the white people. Martin Luther king was a very powerful speaker, a very enthusiastic speak, and used some very powerful speeches to get his views across. For example he used his most famous speech to put his Christian beliefs into action. The speak named :“I have a dream
Christians may follow Martin Luther King’s actions, and experiment with them for themselves, which in effect will discourage these Christians in using weapons, resulting in deaths and casualties. Martin Luther King was just as successful in speaking and protesting, than the army’s who fight to kill. I feel that it gets the point across in a much better way, as nobody is killed or hurt.
So all these teaching are ways in which Christians can either use violence under controlled circumstances or different ways in using violence. They are all ways in which the believer can do their action knowing that they are not doing evil, and having God beside them all the way.
The most recent event of late to do with war conflict is the Iraq war. Saddam Hussian we were told and could see was not a particularly pleasant man. I heard in papers and through television what he was doing to people and how he treated them. As Christians then in one point of view from the Sermon on the Mount we should forgive this man for his wrong doings and let him repent his own sins. This belief of forgiveness decelerates that should he recognise his wrongs and change his behaviour he could then be forgiven of his previous sins. Unfortunately Saddam was tolerant of the pain and suffering caused under his regime and unwilling to recognise a need to change his behaviour. However once captured Saddam was not subjected to the torture that he imposed but treated in a Christian and humane manner. Though as the passage states we should still maintain our Christian values and be forgiving, `to turn the other cheek`.
An issue closer to home regarding conflict and Christianity is the fighting in Northern Ireland regarding the Catholics and Protestants. The two communities are constantly at war with one another over their faiths and in doing so are abandoning the core values of their religions. These two sets of people are following the `eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth`, way of dealing with their problems and issues, which has proven itself through twenty years of conflict to be ineffective and destructive. As again the passage from the Sermon on the Mount comes into effect and the two sides should realise that when a person of one side is killed they should not seek revenge and to kill, but to `live and let live`. Then this may result in an end to the violence and tragedies that are so often occurring.
In the other effect towards Saddam Hussian issues we as Christians could most notice the quote of `An eye for and eye and a tooth for tooth`, from the Old Testament and do to Saddam the horrific things that we hear of him doing. Not many Christians, today I believe see this way of dealing with things. More to the point would not be really able as out generation of law and order would just not allow it. When people saw Saddam Hussian damaging an empire and country most I would have believed that they were angry and human instinct gets the better of belief. It is a natural feeling to become angry and upset with something or somebody. And this combining with believing that it is right to acknowledge the passage from the Old Testament results in terrible effects to people’s lives. Also this relates to the Wars going on around Northern Ireland. The two religions are constantly battling each other. We have seen the results of this situation and there is no justice to the trauma and deaths that are carried out. Christians carried out their various beliefs in this war by doing what they thought was right, in both cases many Christians campaigned for the war do stop, others worked as conscientious objectors in Iraq or part of a voluntary medics in Northern Ireland other Christians also fought for what they believed in. Its all down to the individuals choice of what they believe in and also about how they carry these beliefs out.
AO3
There are many different responses to this statement, and different people hold different opinions, both for and against it. I agree with the statement, because Christians are taught that “to sin is human, to forgive is divine”, proving that it is difficult even to forgive, never mind forget.
An argument in favour of the statement is, as human beings, we do not possess the capability to completely wipe out memories from our minds, no matter how hard we may try. Also, memories involving pain and suffering are nearly always fresh in our minds, and it is the thoughts of this kind that we are told to forget, which is extremely difficult, and very rarely possible.
In addition, some sins are so serious that to simply forgive and forget is not an option. Even Jesus himself enforced this point, when he told his disciples that one of them was going to betray him. He used the words “it would have been better for this person had they never been born,” which may sound a cruel thing to say, but what Jesus really meant was that it was going to be difficult to forget what Judas was about to do to him.
Another point strongly agreeing with the statement is, human beings can learn from their mistakes, and if sins and crimes were erased from our memories we would never learn. This is true, as we are not perfect, and we need to learn from our mistakes in order to make ourselves a better person.
On the other hand, it could be argued that forgetting is central to the forgiving process, and true forgiveness involves being able to move on and forget what was done in the past. If people keep bringing up what has been done in the past, and dwelling on it, then this suggests that forgiveness has not truly been granted, therefore, reconciliation does not occur.
Also, by refusing to forget what has been done, a person becomes consumed with regret, bitterness and anger, all of which are all destructive characteristics resulting in their lives becoming focused on mourning and revenge, and the motivation and ability to move on is lost. Constantly reminding someone of past feelings is un-Christian behaviour.
In conclusion, I believe that it is possible for a person to forgive, but I agree that it is not always possible to forget what they have done. Are we supposed to forget every time a person sins? Maybe we can forget the odd venial sin, but what about mortal sins, like somebody killing someone close to you? It is just not possible to forgive and forget about somebody who commits mass murder such as Myra Hindley, and we know that a victims mother, Anne West, can never forgive what Myra Hindley did to her daughter, and cannot bring herself to say the words, “forgive us our sins, as we forgive those who trespass against us,” in the Lord’s Prayer.
In my opinion the world would be a much better place if everyone forgave and forget as there wouldn’t be such thing as conflicts if everyone followed the rule, there would just be peace. However I also think that it is impossible for us as humans to do this as we are simply not good enough as a race to be able to carry this out, there will always be ‘bad’ people that other people see as monsters but to themselves they are merely doing what they think they should do.
As Christians we all do our utmost to forgive and forget – none of us are without sin; let those who have committed no sin cast the first stone.
Bibliography
New testament-
Marks gospel
Matthews gospel
Johns gospel
Lukes gospel
Book of exodus- Old Testament
