Can a "real' Christian support the war in Iraq ?

Jesus said "Blessed are the peacemakers". I cannot find anything in the Bible tha would lead me to believe he would support this "immoral" endeavor. Perhaps some good Christian could find something to reassure us that did not and do not support this war? Jesus said "love thy enemy". Jesus said to give the shirt off your back. Jesus said to turn the other cheek. But, search as I may, I cannot find anything in the Christian Bible where Jesus says "bomb the hell out of them and if women and small children are cut to pieces, it is in the name of God"? Can some Christian help us out with this dilemma?

There is no religion in the world which supports an attack outside of self-defense (a truly imminent threat). None.

That means I go to Church three times;

When I'm baptized, when I'm married, and at my wake.
-Just Kidding.

No, True Christians never support violence of any kind. They understand that to die for peace is far more acceptable than to kill for life.
After all - those who die for peace are supposed to be saved according to their own 'beliefs'.

Hypocrites all of them.

And, of course, fundigellicals are hardly Christian.

that war tolerators send Christmas Cards that say Peace on Earth and Good WIll to Men. They say it on the signs in the churchyard. They say it in banners or neon lights on their house. Corporations who could be making money off war say it in their greetings of cards or advertisements. We are a most hypocritical nation. We are pre-emptive earth resource predators and imperialists. Truth with a bite. Maybe I'm sorry if I offend since we're now going into Christmas, but we're going into the season with thousands dead and wounded and if living - facing a handicapped life through limb, organ, mind-soul, immune system and personal financial difficulties.

* Offer not valid in Iraq.

,...certainly do not support any war of aggression (rather than protection).

However, being "Christian" has been influenced by fear, a sense of powerlessness and victimhood. Hence, being "Christian" has been used as a tool for rationalizing peoples' breach of the most basic, Christian tenets,...not the least of which is, he who has no sin cast the first stone. Persecution.

http://www.everyvoice.org/lev/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=86

As Christian clergy and laypeople from around the country, we come together to stand and to speak. We speak now, because there is no more important time. We speak together, because there is no more important way. We speak as people of faith, because faith is central to our vision of what America can still represent. Today we are impelled by our faith to declare that our country can and must do better.

>>>>>>>>

Read the endorsements

&

http://www.progressivechristiansuniting.org/LEV.shtml#info

We ask that question all the time, what Bible are "they" reading from? Best we can come up with is pieces of the "Old Testament".

My hubbie and I grew very frustrated with the "non-denominational" church we were going to and finally were able to find a Mennonite church in Dallas. www.peacemennonite.org

Interestingly enough, our pastor was a chaplain in the military (Baptist, I think) and left the military to become a Mennonite Pastor. He's active in the Dallas chapter of Vets for Peace and the Dallas Peace Center. (There is a group being organized to educate kids and to resist the recruiters by exposing many of the truths left out).

Living in the heart of the Bible Belt with many mega-churches within the area, it is difficult to find very many churches that don't preach against this war.

Some members within the peace movement are starting actions soon in front of these churches (passing out info and holding signs).

I was raised by liberal Mennonites, myself, and even as a child, found myself mystified by "christians" who were so hell-bent on going to war at the slightest provocation.

The mystification continues.

anyway, glad you're happy in your church home, and may Peace Mennonite flourish in Dallas.

Holy Hand Grenade, in the Book of Armaments. Wait, maybe I'm thinking of something else.:crazy:

But now I don't have to. How timely. Today in church, our pastor had a dynamite sermon. The sermon was on Jesus as Peacemaker. I was on the verge of nodding off (not his fault, I promise) when he said, "I'd like to read you something from Jerry Falwell." He read a quote of Falwell's that promoted violence toward terrorists. The quote ended with something like Falwell saying, "so we should blow all terrorists away in the name of God!" Our pastor paused, looked up with his eyes ablaze and said loudly, "Did you hear THAT? We should 'BLOW AWAY the terrorists in the name of God! And THIS is from a 'Christian'!"

He then handed out a two-page flyer about confessing Christ in a world of violence. He asked everyone to READ it. We didn't have to AGREE with it. But we should be able to discuss it. Discuss it, he said, not from the standpoint of politics or social position or wealth, but discuss it from the standpoint of scripture. The following link is hereby provided:

http://www.sojo.net/index.cfm?action=action.election&item=confession_signers

I want everyone here at DU to understand that there are Christians -- and then, again, there are Christians.

May this message build bridges and not walls.

the History of Christianity.

Principles of the Just War

* A just war can only be waged as a last resort. All non-violent options must be exhausted before the use of force can be justified.
* A war is just only if it is waged by a legitimate authority. Even just causes cannot be served by actions taken by individuals or groups who do not constitute an authority sanctioned by whatever the society and outsiders to the society deem legitimate.
* A just war can only be fought to redress a wrong suffered. For example, self-defense against an armed attack is always considered to be a just cause (although the justice of the cause is not sufficient--see point #4). Further, a just war can only be fought with "right" intentions: the only permissible objective of a just war is to redress the injury.
* A war can only be just if it is fought with a reasonable chance of success. Deaths and injury incurred in a hopeless cause are not morally justifiable.
* The ultimate goal of a just war is to re-establish peace. More specifically, the peace established after the war must be preferable to the peace that would have prevailed if the war had not been fought.
* The violence used in the war must be proportional to the injury suffered. States are prohibited from using force not necessary to attain the limited objective of addressing the injury suffered.
* The weapons used in war must discriminate between combatants and non-combatants. Civilians are never permissible targets of war, and every effort must be taken to avoid killing civilians. The deaths of civilians are justified only if they are unavoidable victims of a deliberate attack on a military target.

http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/pol116/justwar.htm

However, there's also a strong pacifist tradition in Christianity which is still followed by groups such as Quakers and Mennonites. I'd say its a little easier to build a Biblical argument for pacifism than for just war, but pacifism has its flaws when your're dealing with certain historical situations.

Pre-emptive warfare is pretty much non-justifiable and I believe even the current pope has pointed this out to Mr. Bush.

for a lot of reasons. But I think the powers that be played such a good game at pretending there was an imminent threat that it passed the smell test - as if our pre-emptive strike was really a defensive act. Now that we are in there on the ground it seems that a lot of the other issues get clouded too- prisoner abuse, lack of regard for civilian targets, nation building etc.

Justifying the pre-emptive strike was the real chicanery here.

Under just war theory it seems like all these provisions seem to dwarf out the only really major provision that should guide Christians' use of force. That is whether an action results in peace.

from a family of southern baptists. My mother and I argue all the time about what the hell Jesus must have meant when he said "turn the other cheek", "forgive those who sin against you" and "love your enemy". She and her church support the war and president Bush (to the point of idolatry).

I belong to a UCC church. Our pastor is very active in the anti-war group here. He will not preach politics - but his sermons make it clear that no "good" or "true" christian could follow the tenets of the gop.

Honestly? The christians in the US are living in a paradigm shift. They look at corporations raping the earth and that's fine with them. They look at a war that was immoral and that's fine with them. They look at a woman struggling to feed her children and they say "she should have thought of that before she had sex" and then support each other in not helping her.

True christian principles have been eschewed by many mainstream christians. They can justify their actions by saying "love the sinner, hate the sin" (which I don't get because they're not exactly loving the "sinner").

Christians should abide by certain principles like peacemaking, assisting the poor, loving their neighbor, protecting life, etc. but I don't think God set a specific policy guideline to meet those goals.

As far as Christ saying to turn the other cheek I believe that refers to personal vengeance and didn't speak on civil govt maintaining a military.

A civil govt abiding by Christian principles is permitted to use military force but only in a manner necessary to promote eventual peace. For instance we know defeating Hitler resulted in peace.

If you truly believe never using military force will result in peace, you're abiding by Christian principles if you're a pacifist.

If you're a pacifist just because you think war is wrong and you don't care if it results in peace or not or you know it won't result in peace then you're not abiding by Christian principles.

"As far as Christ saying to turn the other cheek I believe that refers to personal vengeance and didn't speak on civil govt maintaining a military." - YOUR extrapolation. Please show me ANYWHERE in the Bible where Jesus condoned killing... I know you cannot.

I don't believe that the entire body of what Christ encompassed can be fit into one book. I can show you Bible verses where God requires civil authorities to maintain an army.

I think it's silly to say all true Christians must oppose having an army. If that's true your version of Christ is more narrow than Falwell's.

"I'm not a protestant..." - I never asked you, but since you have told me what you are not, what religion do you follow then?

"I don't believe that the entire body of what Christ encompassed can be fit into one book"- I don't think your body will get through the eye of a needle either.

"I can show you Bible verses where God requires civil authorities to maintain an army." - Though this is an evasion, go ahead. List them ALL right now.

"I think it's silly to say all true Christians must oppose having an army." - Simply YOUR opinion. This has nothing to do with what Jesus taught us.

"If that's true your version of Christ is more narrow than Falwell's." - Go ahead and insult me. You are telling us how YOU think and rationalize.

Are you a Christian? Are you saying Christians must oppose all uses of military force?

I'm not trying to insult you, just saying your definition of Christ really narrows the field of Christians. Jerry Falwell says all "real" Christians must want abortion banned, which is maybe 50% of Christians.

I'd say maybe 5% or less Christians oppose all uses of force.

I think any Christian who doesn't struggle with how best to fulfill such teachings as being peacemakers and "knows" exactly how Christ intends us to fulfill it is fooling themselves.

I cannot and do not speak for other Christians, nor can I claim what percentage totally oppose war. Btw, how do you come by these figures? All I can say is that I oppose war for ANY reason. All I can say about MY BELIEF is: Jesus opposes war for ANY reason. I have never read in the Bible where Jesus condones war. Can you show me a passage where Jesus makes an exception? The graphic I made below was created to make Christians THINK about war and their personal belief system. That's all.

What does that fool Jerry Falwell have to do with it anyway? I never listen to that monster because he turns my stomach, nor do I trust his "facts and figures" (or did you invent those percentage figures yourself?) He claims he's Christian but I don't believe him. The 'chistian' Coalition is the American version of the Taliban and Falwell is a terrorist. I saw him say we should kill all Muslims, while Pat Robertson agreed... I believe in their world, Catholics would be killed too (just a hunch). Jimmy Swaggart was saying the same thing about Muslims on his show just a couple of weeks ago. They are not Christians. They are terrorists.

The world would be a lot better if we would marginalize nut cases like Falwell and Bin Laden, here and abroad.

less violent ways to bring about peace. Witness Gandhi.

As for Hitler - why is that always brought up when you say you're a pacifist? Truth? Hitler was bad, but we were complicit in the holocaust. A group of Quakers went to Hitler when they heard he was putting Jews in concentration camps. Hitler agreed to let any Jew who wished leave the country, but he told them they would not find a country willing to take them. Hitler was right. There was a ship of Jews that went from country to country and was not allowed to dock, eventually they returned to Germany and the gas chambers. At first Hitler was "only" putting the Jews in the camps, after he realized that no one really cared (and let's not pretend that our countries cared) he started actively killing them.

The US put Saddam in power. We didn't care when he invaded Kuwait until the Kuwaitis offered us money to care.

We like to pretend that we care - but as a country we only care when we can get monetary gain. The people who start war do not want peace. They enter into war with the hope of gaining something.

Peace. I believe in peace. I live a peaceful life. I do not believe you will ever attain peace through war.

But you can't go back in time. I'm not saying force is always the answer. I'm simply saying never using force doesn't always bring peace.

For instance if police didn't use force to arrest violent criminals would things be less or more peaceful?

Countries where police use less force tend to be more peaceful. Maybe it's chicken and egg, but I don't think so. I think the use of force in the US and by the US has led to less peaceful times. And the more force we use, the less peaceful it will be.

All of Christ's teachings (and you can argue about the bible all you want, but it was your church that compiled it and it's what we have) are about peace. CHRIST'S teachings. Not the teachings of people who feel they were led by God or Christ - WTF knows who was really leading them.

To be Christ-like (the meaning of the word christian), we have to be peaceful. If we are truly Christ-like then we will allow ourselves to be killed before we will result to violence.

I don't think Christianity is about being Christlike. It's about recognizing that no person is righteousness enough to be saved by the grace of God.

When Christ said to be peacemakers I don't think he said we can create the kind of peace he could bring about.

The word itself MEANS christ like. Christians are SUPPOSED to be people who strive to be as like Christ as possible.

I'm not Catholic, but I'm wondering, is this something your church teaches? It is beyond bizarre that you think christianity has little to do with Christ.

don't you understand?

Christianity isn't about rationalizing the teachings to suit an agenda.

It's about striving to understand their meaning on deep spiritual level.

People tend to die when Christianity is wielded superficially.

Jesus did not say "blessed are the warmakers with a just cause".
he said "blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called the children of God"

pretty simple. I had written several more paragraphs explaining my point, but I keep coming back to those two sentences.

nt

Christianity doesn't require Christians to perform specific policy actions. For instance Christians are required to be peacemakers and in certain cases military can result in pacification.

I do believe Christianity prescribes against continuing actions a person knows is resulting in chaos and destroying chances for peace. Also I believe it frowns upon not taking an action we know will result in peace.

I think it's arrogant to say a certain war is unChristian when some people may truly believe the act of removing Saddam Hussein would help toward peace.

I would say Christians should frown upon the administration's lack of planning for after Saddam's removal which they should've known would result in chaos not peace.

Christians should frown upon the poor planning after Saddam's removal after they thought it would help bring peace... with 100,000 Iraqis dead or injured...It's that "belief" that taking a violent action "we know will result in peace" that bothers me....especially since it has been proven so sinfullly and immorally wrong.

I said Christians are required to be peacemakers but God doesn't require specific policy guidelines for that.

I myself don't believe US troops simply leaving Iraq will result in peace, until we determine a solution that results in peace.

Christ said we can't judge someone's righteousness by their outward actions but by judging their heart.

Same thing goes for judging any govt policy as being unChristian.

I agree invading Iraq was unwise by I wouldn't judge it as unChristian.

But I don't recall chapter and verse where Jesus says you can invade a country and kill tens of thousands of innocent people for your government?? I recall he kicked the money lenders out of the temple and that he also said, 'Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's and unto God that which is God's'.... Maybe you can enlighten us a little more with this Christianity thing??

I don't understand what you're asking me.

Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's and God what is God's basically means that the state and God each have their own functions.

The question put to Christ was more along the lines of whether the faithful should pay taxes.

Rendering unto Caesar what is Caesar's is usually understood in the context that all money had Caesar's portrait on it.

"Render under God that which is God's" is generally understood as faith and obedience.

When Christ says "when a man comes to steal your cloak, offer him your tunic as well" or "love your enemies, for how is it a credit to you to only love your bretheren, for even the gentiles do this", or "Turn the other cheek". What exactly does he mean?

This war is catagorically unChristian. Even the leaders of George W. Bush's church (the United Methodist Church) has condemmed it as such.

By taking a few Bible quotes out of context.

You have taken your beliefs and rationalizations and injected it into this thread, yet you cannot show us where Jesus justifies killing.

"I don't think you can define Christ.." - I'm reeling from the hypocrisy of that statement.




edit: Swamp Rats are bad spellers.

Having read the entire Bible a number of times in several translations, read and written on the work of theologians, and having been a church leader myself for the last 20 years, I can speak with some sense of authority on the matter.

Your statement that the Bible supports a notion that the religious or sacred is seperated from the acts of the larger community in regard to peace and social justice is flatly wrong and entirely inconsistent with the Christian faith as it has been practiced widely for hundreds of years.

The very fact that there is a Christian understanding of a "just war" doctrine indicates that the leadership of many Churches concur that the acts of government are in fact spoken to in the Christian gospel.

George W. Bush's failure to live up to the standards of the "just war" doctrine of the United Methodist Church earned his policy their condemnation.

The short examples I gave are consistent with the testimony of Christ throughout the New Testament. Your profound misinterpretation of a single passage stands at odds with the text taken in context. I reject it utterly.

"You have heard it said, an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, but I say unto you, love your enemies"

Civil government should meet, I'm saying He doesn't set out specific policy guidelines to meet them.

But saying that those who are in error could not be Christians or are not "true" Christians strikes me as Pharisaical.

Christians, along with all other peoples, lie, cheat, steal and kill. In short they sin. And it is precisely because of this sinning that they need Christ.

While I will grant that the condemnation is harsh and verges on the Pharisaical, there are some basic standards to be upheld.

Does a mass murderer become a christian solely because he professes a faith in Christ while continuing in his murderous ways? I do not believe so.

"Thou shalt not kill" had previously demanded that Abraham sacrifice his son Isaac to Him. Also, not to long after issuing the "Thou shalt not Kill" order He told the Hebrews to wipe out the Caananites to claim their promised land.

That discussion would require a long and detailed discussion of the Bible.

Jesus said blessed are the peacemakers, he never said peacemaking means never using military force.

Not using force against Japan during WW2 certainly wouldn't have resulted in peace.

Again, stop pretending you know what Jesus WOULD say or do. You do not.

"Jesus said blessed are the peacemakers, he never said peacemaking means never using military force." - Pffft! Setting up your argument to where one must prove a negative?... Donald Rumsfeld, is that you?

"Not using force against Japan during WW2 certainly wouldn't have resulted in peace." - Is that in your Bible?

I don't believe just because the Bible doesn't say something means it's not true.

I'm not saying what Jesus would or wouldn't do, you are :) You're claiming to know Jesus would oppose a specific war.

I'm saying Christ said blessed are the peacemakers, that's it.

"You're claiming to know Jesus would oppose a specific war." - Where did I say that?

"again I'm not a protestant.." - Then WHAT are you? I never asked you what religion you adhere to, but you've made this statement twice, so now I am curious. Are you a Muslim, a Buddhist, a Satanist, or do you play with Norse runes?

It means that he does not subscribe the the "sola scriptura" aka word alone doctrine, which stipulates that church teachings should only be drawn from scripture.

An example of this would be the "just war" doctrine which has been adopted by the Catholic Church (I believe). The RCC maintains that tradition and particulary its authority as the "one true church" is also a basis for teachings, not just the scripture. Thus while a more fundamentalist view of "Jesus had only bad things to say about war, thus we must be pacifists" would pass the sola scriptura test. The "Just war" doctrine might not.

I was assuming that he may be Catholic (though he never brought up "sola scriptura"), but I didn't want to insult him if he was a Satanist or something. :D

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sola_scriptura
http://www.mbrem.com/
http://www.solagroup.org/
http://solascriptura.com/
http://www.sola-scriptura.ca/
http://www.catholic.net/rcc/Periodicals/Issues/sola.html
http://www.americancatholic.org/News/JustWar/justwar.asp

I could go on for hours just listing links, but that was originally the challenge to the other poster.

"I don't believe that the entire body of what Christ encompassed can be fit into one book" combined with "I'm not a Protestant" kind of just brought me to that conclusion

I suppose he could be Orthodox,

But voted for Kerry.

Interestingly I agree with the Church that Catholics should be pro-life but don't think that requires us to want abortion banned.

It's sort of like how I think Christians are required to be peacemakers but shouldn't expect God to set policy guidelines for it.

This article came out just after Saddam was captured: VATICAN CITY (CNS) -- The capture of Saddam Hussein may help bring peace to Iraq, but it does not change the fact that "the war was useless, and served no purpose," a top Vatican official said.

Cardinal Renato R. Martino, head of the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, said the Vatican wants Saddam to receive a fair trial for alleged crimes during his long dictatorship. As in other cases, the Vatican is opposed to the death penalty for the fallen Iraqi leader, he said........

The cardinal said he hopes Saddam's capture "contributes to peace and the reconstruction of Iraq. But it would be illusory to think that it will repair the damage caused by that great defeat for humanity which war always represents."

There's lots more on the topic here:
www.americancatholic.org/News/JustWar/Iraq/

That's the Pope's personal opinion. It wasn't an encyclical declaration on faith and morals.

By the way, I'm not saying I supported the invasion of Iraq.

Yes or no?

And what do you have against the Pope?

Just disagree with him on some things.

. . . he never said peacemaking means never using military force.

. . . Blessed are the Peacemakers.

By definition, military force is not peacemaking.

except your salvation. But God told the nations in the olden days different things, like take the spoils of war and all the virgins and kill the rest. it was kill kill kill kill kill until his beloved Son arrived

aren't you?

It's nice to know Lord Buckley isn't forgotten these days.

This "real Christian" line annoys the crap out of me; people who believe in an afterlife have given themselves an "out" for any killing they might do because it's not really killing. As for stomping the infidels, well, that's acceptable to many in the faith.

The concept that's most tiresome is the given that Christianity is good and the pursuit is by definition beneficial to mankind. Since the number one goal of a member of the faith is his/her own salvation and an eternity of head-patting from the big Sky Daddy, it's a form of selfishness at its very core. Sure, there's lots of good stuff in there, but the heart of it is problematic.

Meaning that peace in the middle east will result from the war. I blame the lying media and pastors who preach this for the idiocy. I also hold folks responsible for their idiocy but I know several who spend their lives helping the homeless, establishing battered women's shelters, cooking endless meals for needy and yet supported this war. I think they are wrong but they are more compassionate and giving in their daily lives than I am. So, the Bible also says; 'Judge not so you will not be judged.' I'm not going to say they aren't Christian, just misinformed idiots who I wish would not vote.

All one has to do to be a real Christian is believe in Christ. Errors of judgment and wrong actions are not made impossible by this

edit typo

in any sense. Jesus is the ultimate example in non-voilent change. Whether or not you believe Jesus is The Messaih, his example of non-voilent protest outlasted, outlived and outshone anything the Roman Empire could dish out.

No servant can serve two masters....Ye cannot serve God and mammon.

Seems to me these Falwellian "Christians" need to decide if they want to worship George W Bush or Jesus Christ...?

no and no.

Jesus didn't write the Bible - neither did his contempories. The Bible contaibs as much exhortation to war and violence as it does to peace. No two Christians agree on what Christianity is and what it advocates.

Whether Jesus would have approved of this war is utterly irrelevant.

isn't there? I don't agree with you that it is "irrelevant". When the other side is cramming their "morals" and Christianity down everybody's throats, it is fair game, I would say necessary, to point out just what their Savior has to say about war and killing and taking care of the poor and loving their enemies. We have a duty to point out the hypocrisy of the false prophets and fake Christians.

because we have no idea what Jesus did or didn't say. To use a quote from the BIble to suggest war (this is any other) is wrong can be contradicted by another Bible quote (and I'm well aware of the difference between Old and New Testament, am also aware of the blood within the new - some people seem to think the New Testament is nothing but a hippie love fest - nothing could be further from teh truth)

You can not point out the hypocrisy of other people hiding behind religion because you will no doubt be guiklty of it yourself. Who's version of Christianity would you use? the bible itself is useless to prove God/Jesus wanted anything - most of it can be contradicted by another section

If they want to quote the Bible, I will quote it with them. Give us your quote.

Jesus ever said - remembering the BIble was written 100's of years after his alleged death.

You originally talk about "real" Christians, who are they?

I'm saying that as a Christian I can't say unless you oppose this war, this tax cut, support banning abortion, etc. you're not a "real" Christian.

that people get (understandibly) annoyed when the Falwell types claim to be the "real" Christians but are happy to claim that peace loving turn the other cheek type Christians ARE the "real" ones.

For all we know NONE of them are.

real christian? Let me at em!

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

lions at the local zoo here. Maybe we can have a revival there.

If (and only if) Saddam was a tyrant, according to the doctrine of Saint Thomas Aquinas, a Christian was entitled to kill him: "He who kills a tyrant to free his country is praised and rewarded" (Sentences, 44.2.2)

A lot of Catholics defended tyrannicide (Salisbury, Suárez) and so did Luther and Calvin.

Of course it's legitimate to kill a tyrant, not the people whom he rules over, so I suppose, according to this doctrine, it would be OK for a Christian to kill Saddam, but not the innocent people of Iraq.

Oh, and before you jump into my jugular, no, I'm not a Christian, I don't necessarily support the doctrine of tyrannicide, and I don't support any killing of Saddam or any Iraqi people.

Edited for typo.

or the "real christian" moniker is defined anew each generation. Read history. Augustine's "just war" notion was popularized primarily to allow christians to participate in the wars of Rome, and has been used and abused in virtually every western war since. The number of wars fought where both sides prayed and assured themselves of their "just" condition prior to slaughtering each other is beyond count.

In Northern Europe the protestants and catholics warred to the extent that whole regions were devastated and depopulated in the sixteenth century and seventeenth century. This lingered as a memory in the founding fathers here, and is sometimes given as the core reason behind the desire for a separation of church and state.

I would like to think that what Christ said was credible among christians, but the expectation seems unreasonable. Fundies among my former co-workers were universally pro-war, pro retribution, pro gun. Among my former catholic friends, the smart went to college, the less so went into the military. No issue was raised on either account as to what was "christian". Again, it would be nice to think that "christian" had some meaning based upon text, but it has none. The history of the christian religion is one of slaughter and pillage, as much as the history of humanity is an account of slaughter and pillage . There is no special expectation.