(Redo)Does the Bible teach complete Pacifism?
Debate Rounds (4)
My hope for this debate is to reveal the truth around the controversial idea that the Bible teaches complete pacifism.
Before we begin,ladies and gentlemen,I want to make one thing clear;I am not against being pacifistic,on the contrary,pacifism is the answer to many problems we face daily.
However,to say that the Bible teaches that we should never use force,(eg.defend ourselves,or participate in just war) is completely unscriptural.
Just a reminder,all biblical references and quotes are to be based on the KJV Bible.
What is "Complete Pacifism"? Here is the definition of "pacifism" according to the Merriam Webster's Dictionary.
1 : opposition to war or violence as a means of settling disputes; specifically : refusal to bear arms on moral or religious grounds
2 : an attitude or policy of non resistance
Allow me to restate my position in this debate.I am not against being pacifistic,but the belief that the Bible teaches we should never defend ourselves or participate in just war is completely unscriptural.
I will number my points throughout the debate.
1.God commanding the Israelites to wipe out entire nations in the Old Testament.(Also see Deuteronomy 20:17)
1 Samuel 15:3 - Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.
It should also be noted that he commanded them to do this after he had given the Ten Commandments.One of them being "Thou shalt not kill".
Obviously,lest God cause his people to disobey his own command,this shows that God does not consider war fought for a just cause to be a violation of the Ten Commandments.
1a.Deuteronomy 20 is an entire chapter dedicated to God instructing his people on how to conduct warfare.
Deuteronomy 20:1-4 "1When thou goest out to battle against thine enemies, and seest horses, and chariots, and a people more than thou, be not afraid of them: for the LORD thy God is with thee, which brought thee up out of the land of Egypt. 2And it shall be, when ye are come nigh unto the battle, that the priest shall approach and speak unto the people, 3 And shall say unto them, Hear, O Israel, ye approach this day unto battle against your enemies: let not your hearts faint, fear not, and do not tremble, neither be ye terrified because of them; 4 For the LORD your God is he that goeth with you, to fight for you against your enemies, to save you. "
2.God helps Israel defend themselves in battle against the attacking Amalekites.
Exodus 17:8-16 - 10 So Joshua did as Moses had said to him, and fought with Amalek: and Moses, Aaron, and Hur went up to the top of the hill. 11 And it came to pass, when Moses held up his hand, that Israel prevailed: and when he let down his hand, Amalek prevailed.
God does not consider self-defense sinful,this battle clearly shows this.
3.Jesus is not a pacifist.John 2:15 shows Jesus driving out merchants in the temple with a whip!
John 2:15 - And when he had made a scourge of small cords, he drove them all out of the temple, and the sheep, and the oxen; and poured out the changers' money, and overthrew the tables;
My fellow viewers,even if he didn't whip anyone,someone claiming Jesus taught pacifism sure overlooked Jesus' obvious violation of the principles of pacifism in doing this.
4.The book of Revelation does not teach pacifism,on the contrary,it shows how violent and just God is!
Revelation 19:14-16 - 14 And the armies which were in heaven followed him upon white horses, clothed in fine linen, white and clean. 15 And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God. 16 And he hath on his vesture and on his thigh a name written, KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS.
5.One of the most important things about God's word is it's application into our lives.Unfortunately and conveniently for those who practice complete pacifism,they do not look at the logical conclusion of pacifism.
If what my opponent believes is true ,ladies and gentlemen,then we should not have a police force,a government,a military,weapons to defend ourselves with,and we should leave criminals,tyrannical governments,and invading armies unopposed as these things violate complete pacifism.
5a.The police force justly uses force to enforce the law.If the police became complete pacifists,they would do nothing more to criminals than ask them to stop committing crimes.
5b.Need I even mention the military?A nation's military is used to defend it's homeland against other nations;pacifism would eliminate the military immediately,and we already know this would just open the door for a foreign country to attack us.
5c.We use weapons to defend ourselves against external threats such as criminals and tyrannical governments.
Murder(Unlawful killing) is not the same as self-defense.Guns save lives daily and they lower crime!
So many people forget that if it weren't for soldiers who bravely stood up against Hitler in WW2,who made everything he did legal, we would all be speaking German right now,assuming they hadn't already put us to death for our beliefs!
5d.God is not going to have his written word teach us something that will not function in modern day life,this would be a mistake on God's part.
In conclusion,let me ask a question.If you saw a man raping a woman,would you stand by and just pray for the rapist?
Jesus said ,"love thy neighbor as thyself",obviously God created a righteous use of force without sin.
piefav forfeited this round.
White_Fire forfeited this round.
White_Fire forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by lannan13 2 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||5||0|
Reasons for voting decision: Con posted an arugment
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.