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

Pro has appeared to have dropped many of his initial arguments in his latest response. As will become evident, he also neglects to respond to many of the points I have brought up. Before I get into the brunt of my response, let me address a misunderstanding that is evident throughout Pro's argument.Murder vs. Killing? Pro operates under the assumption that "Murder" and "Killing" and synonymous, and that therefore both are evil. Even a cursory examinination of the Biblical text reveals this to be incorrect. "Killing" simply refers to the act of taking a life and is not inherently immoral, otherwise God would have been acting immorally in commanding the Israelites to undertake various military campaigns against neighbors. "Murder," by contrast, refers to the unjust taking of a life and is hence intrinsically immoral. The Ten Commandments carry a prohibition on murder -- not killing.Indeed, this distinction allows us to understand how God could have justly commanded wars in the Old Testament. However, Pro argues that Jewish war was "an acceptable evil in the interest of continuing the survival of the chosen race" and that God "blessed people for following his commands, not simply for the act of killing people." He then argues that since the Jews were condemned to hell anyway, their sins did not matter.The idea that for the Israelites, war was an "acceptable evil" is problematic. Assuming that war was evil, why would God have commanded his people to engage in immoral acts? Moreover, why did God himself participate in war if it was immoral? Why did he bless those who did evil acts? Since he is a Christian, Pro's argument runs the risk of blasphemy, for it is suggesting that God sinned. This is in direct contradiction to scripture, which emphasizes God's moral perfection (James 1:16-17). Moreover, the idea that the "Jews were condemned to Hell until then" and that therefore "their sisns did not matter." Is absurd. The Bible mentions a plethora of Old Testament figures who were saved prior to the advent of the Messiah -- people like Abraham (Who was, as Hebrews states "justified by faith") and Elijah.Biblical Justification of War Responding to the charge that civil government is entrusted with the ability to punish evildoers, Pro agrees, but argues that this precludes the use of "mortal violence." But even a cursory reading of Romans 13:1-7 shows this to be flatly incorrect. Government is entrusted with the task of "wielding the sword," meaning that it may therefore use death as an acceptable punishment for wrongdoers. Romans 13:4-5 indicates: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 Pro argues that fighting in a war guarantees one's death and therefore cannot be justified according to Christian principles. But so what? If the state exercises its biblically granted power of the sword within its own borders, that too guarantees death for he person receiving said punishment. What then, is the difference between war and administering justice within a state's own borders? There is none. If the latter is justified (As Romans clearly indicates), then the latter is justified as well. If the state is justified in wielding the sword, it may justly participate in war. Aside from location, there is no difference between wielding the sword internally and externally. But mere location does not seem to make a relevant difference here. So the differences here are largely irrelevant.Pro is correct that in a perfect world, there would be no war. But Biblical ethics are not about an unattainble ideal -- they are structured with concern to the fallen world. In such a world, God has legitimatelly allowed the use of violence as a moral means of dealing with evildoers. Ideals are therefore irrelevant to the discussiona at hand, since I might as well argue that we should evangelize since in an ideal world, everyone would be saved. Christ's statement that "two swords were enough" was addressed to two disciples, and therefore the claim that they were "not enough" ignores the context of this verse. Moreover, Pro gives no reason to think that there are dual meanings to this verse. He simply dismisses this, when we observe throughout the Bible that Jesus' teachings often have dual meanings.Christ's rebuke of Peter, moreover, was meant as a condemnation of vigilantism. This is because Peter was taking the law into his own hands, attempting to enforce it without the proper authority. Moreover, notice that Jesus did not condemn legitimate self-defense, as he told peter to simply put his sword away, and not to throw it out. Jesus did not want his disciples to conflict with God's plan by stopping his crucifixion or inciting an uprising against Rome. Obviously, they didn't have enough people to do that, but that does not mitigate the point here in any way.Of Nazis and Pure Ethics In response to my argument that opposition to involvement in World War II is absurd, Pro writes,"Yes I can.""Con's lack of respect for an entirely reasonable ideology shows an utter lack of open-mindedness."Lack of respect? This is a question that has been deeply and seriously wrestled with by many pacifistic thinkers, and Pro's flippant dismissal of my argument shows his own lack of respect for the issues. It seems as if Pro is more concerned with following a rigid framework of laws without caring about its results. A proper biblical ethic commands equal devotion to both law, virtue, and circumstance. As it has been said, law was made for man, not man for the law. Concerning the Hitler question, philosopher Robert Brimlow writes,"How should Christians respond to the kind of evil Hitler represents if just war theory is precluded? We must live faithfully; we must be humble in ou faith and truthful what we say and do... This may also mean as a result that the evildoers will kill us. Then, we also shal die. That's it. There is nothing else -- or rather, anything else is a footnote to this... I desperately want to avoid this conclusion" [1]I submit that if pacifism leads to wildly absurd and counterintuitive conclusions such as these, why not just reject it in light of all the reasons we have seen for embracing an attitude of justifiable warfare for the Christian? Pro's response to my criticism of his pure ethics argument is wholly unconvincing. Recall that in the example I offered, each one of the gansters were armed. Shooting them in the legs would therefore not be an option. Moreover, what exactly would be "immoral" about killing the rapists? To argue that it would be immoral because one would be preventing their salvation is unconvincing, because from a biblical point of view salvation is a gift that nobody deserves. There is nothing intrinisically wrong with depriving someone of an undeserved gift because of their own wrongdoing. God himself struck people dead in both the Old and New Testaments, was he acting immorally because he was preventing salvation which they could have attained had he let them live? Obviously not.Pro argues that my argument misconstrues morality and justice. Not so. While justice is indeed concerned about equal treatment, it also is concerned with dispensing what is deserved. Since life itself is a gift from God, God may order that this gift be taken away under certain circumstances. Since salvation itself is a gift from God, the opportunity to attain it may be denied to some because of their own evil. Verses Supporting Pacifism?Pro largely concedes the point here. One should note that issues of personal conflict do not extend to issues of the state or in situations where one's life is threatened. As the Bible says, render to Caesar what is Caesar's, and render to God what is God's._______1. Robert W. Brimlow, What about Hitler? Wrestling with Jesus' Call to Nonviolence in an Evil World (Grand Rapids: Brazos, 2006) 151