According to basic Christian philosophy, one should take a pacifistic approach towards warfare

1.Biblical Justification While Con is correct when he points out Jesus' teachings against individual aggression, the passages he uses to express his opinion need only a small amount of deeper inspection for one to realize they do not actually oppose pacifism. Firstly, Con states that Rome was given the "right to bear the sword" in 13:1-4, and therefore Rome has the right to use warfare to provide civil defense. This, however, is an inherent misinterpretation of the passage states: Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and you will be commended. For the one in authority is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God's servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. When one looks at the last two sentences, one sees that the passege speaks about a government punishing criminals, not, as Con supposed, about civil defense. Secondly, Con states that in Luke 22:36, Jesus tells the apostles to carry a sword. However, these were not for self-defense, as he conscientiously stated two swords were enough. Two swords were certainly not enough to keep him from being arrested. The actual reason, which Jesus did, this was to fulfill the prophecy that he would be put in the ranks of criminals: two swords were enough to justify him being he of a band of brigands (Luke 22:37) 2.Biblical Warfare Con's second base argument is that because God seems to endorse Jewish wars in the Old Testament, it is acceptable. However, while it is correct that God remains the same, as do ethics, God never actually supported war. While God accepted the necessity of war to continue the chosen race, this did not make it ethical, which he knew. Therefore, when David, a king, wished to build a temple for God, it was not allowed. Although David had only fought for Jerusalem in the name of God, God said, "You have shed much blood and have fought many wars. You are not to build a house for my Name, because you have shed much blood on the earth in my sight." (1 Chronicles 22:8) God accepted that the Jews had to fight wars to survive, and because they were the chosen people he allowed it. However, this did not take away from the sins they committed through killing. 3.Christian Tradition Con states that the view of many early Christians that war was acceptable supports said notion. However, not all of the took this view, in fact, Aristedies, Hippolytus, Arnobius, Cyprian, and Tatian spoke against war. Regardless, an Ethos argument cannot be used to prove such an important moral question. 4. Jus ad Bellum/ 5. Jus in Bello (Just War Theory) While Just War Theory is a highly accepted theory in Catholic teachings, it is not universally recognized as factual. Therefore, Con must prove it rather than simply explaining it. I cannot argue against it if Con does not say why this line of thinking is correct. 6. Pure Ethics While I have already explain why biblical passages which supposedly propose war are misinterpretations, I would like to state the reason why I originally decided to contemplate the legitimacy of pacifism. I would like to ask all readers to think to them about the idea I will share, and I hope they can decide for themselves whether it makes sense. Being that both con and I are Christians, I will speak as if I was talking to him. Both of us, as Christians are aware that when we die, we will go to Heaven or Hell (Purgatory being only a path to Heaven). Martyrs knew this, which is why they chose to die for their own faiths. For a person to die is actually a good thing if they are going to Heaven, murder is only an evil because there is a possibility that you are Damning a human to Hell and eternal punishment. Using this line of thinking, you must pose the question to yourself, "If a sociopath were chasing you, wielding an axe, would it be right to shoot him?" I find the answer to be "No." by shooting this man, you almost certainly condemn him to Hell, but if you were to allow him to close in, you allow for him to change his mind, and let you live. Being that eternal life is so much more valuable to Christians than life of this world, is it not more important to almost certainly sacrifice your less valuable life for the salvation of a man? This is not an absolute argument, just a question I wished to ask all of the readers. It would be very helpful to me if they would respond in the comments. 7. Biblical Passages I would like to close off my argument by wishing my opponent good luck and quoting a few bible passages which seems to clearly support pacifism. "Do not repay evil with evil or insult with insult, but with blessing…." 1 Peter 3:9 "Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everyone. If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone. Do not take revenge, my dear friends, but leave room for God's wrath, for it is written: "It is mine to avenge; I will repay,"[d] says the Lord. On the contrary: ‘If your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink. In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head."[e] Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.' Romans 12:17-21 "Love your enemies, and pray for those who persecute you." Matthew 5:44 ______________________________________________________________________ Sources: Christian Anarchism: A Political Commentary on the Gospel; By: Alexandre Christoyannopoulos