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

I apologize to my opponent and the voters for failing to complete my argument last round, in order to keep the same formant, my "pure ethics" response will conclude my fourth round argument. Biblical Justification "Rather, the point to be inferred here is that civil government is the only legitimate authority under which justice must be dispensed. Therefore, civil governments may justly undertake campaigns both to correct and resist wrongdoing. " Con states that Paul's writings support the use of government force to correct crimes and evil. This is correct, I am not an anarchist nor have I ever mentioned the idea that the government not be allowed to enforce laws. What I am arguing is that the use of mortal violence is an unacceptable extreme. Con also uses the works of Wayne Grudem to argue that the obligation of a country to enforce law is an equal obligation to engage in war for national security. Grudem's main correlation, however, between these to circumstances is in naming the criminal a "robber or thief" and the invaders "murderers or thieves. " There are, however, a number of differences. Most notably, enforcing law normally does not require lethal force, and therefore does not cause any important damage from a religious viewpoint. Fighting in a war, however, guarantees death, and causes moral damage which can not be justified from a Christian viewpoint. Con once again questions why God would command warfare and bless its participants if it were evil. As I explained before, God found Jewish war to be an acceptable evil in the interest of continuing the survival of the chosen race, he blessed people for following his commands, not simply for the act of killing people. Furthermore, because the Messiah had not yet come, the gates of Heaven would be closed until his arrival. The Jews were condemned to Hell until then, so their sins did not matter. Con also includes a ridiculous challenge asking if I can "seriously say with a straight face that American involvement in preventing the spread of Nazi tyranny during WWII was immoral? " Yes I can. Con's lack of respect for an entirely reasonable ideology shows an utter lack of open-mindedness. Biblical Warfare Con claims that warfare is an entirely acceptable practice, yet also says , "War, because it results in death and destruction, alienates mankind from God. " How can anything be worse from a Christian perspective than alienation from God? Therefore, the only justification for war is if being conquered by one's enemy is worse that being alienated from God and possibly sent to Hell. Even the worst possible occurrence from being conquered is death. Death, however, is not nearly as bad as alienation from God, as death is not worse than even the slightest chance of condemnation. Con also cites the difference from church and state as an excuse for a country engaging in warfare. However, to Christians, the perfect world would have governments which followed Christian virtues. The reason for a separation between church and state is not to give governments to right to act immorally. Rather, it is a wise knowledge that there is no certain religion, and to impose any religion's values on any non member would be a great injustice. If any true religion were to surface, all countries would be expected to adhere to such a religion. Con mentions that Christ explicitly stated two swords were enough. Let me reiterate, two swords were not enough if Christ's purpose were self-defense, but were enough if it were to be arrested as a bandit. To interpret this as both a prophecy fulfillment and a recommendation for self-defense is ludicrous, as Christ often advocated submissiveness, especially in personal altercations. Con also suggests that Christ's rebuke of Peter was an attack of vigilante justice. This cannot be true, however, as Peter was not engaging in vigilantism. Peter's actions were as just an action of violence can be: his friend was unjustly arrested and would soon be killed, so he attempted to free his friend. Grudem also claims that Jesus wanted to avoid a military uprising against Rome, this could not be, however, as he did not even have enough supporters to attempt to free him from crucifixion How could Jesus expect anyone to attempt to overthrow ROME? Christian tradition While a small portion of Christians are pacifist, this is considering what an enormously popular religion Christianity is, being that around twice as many pacifist Christian exist that Jews, one cannot automatically lay the burden of proof on me. Pure Ethics Con once again presents situations he expects to shock me into defeat. While I would feel an obligation to protect the raped, it would be immoral to murder the rapists. I would get help, or shoot at the gangsters in the legs to distract them and save the raped, but I would not feel it necessary to kill the rapists. While it would be their own doing when they (presumably) went to Hell, it is the duty of all Christians to spread the word and aid the conversion of others. I believe Con's main difficulty in understanding this is his misunderstanding of the differences of the words just and moral. Justice, which he mentions frequently, has the objective of keeping all things equal and fair to those who work towards said goal. Justice is the reason for jailing criminals, they lose their right to justice when they commit crimes. Con often puts out situations where the just thing to do would be murder, however, this is not the way morality and Christianity works. Christianity values charity. One must recognize that a sinner is far more unfortunate than a person who is in great suffering, for a sinner will suffer for eternity. Therefor, it is more charitable to keep the interests of an evil doer in mind. Morality necessitates that even if someone steals from you, you may take back your money, but not more. If one is to kill a murderer chasing one down, one is sending him to hell, a far greater offense than to have been killed in the act of allowing the murderer to be converted before his death. Verses supporting pacifism While I admit most of these verses apply to personal conflict, any one person should exercise the same morals whether or not they are a part of a small or large conflict.