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

May he with the best arguments win. My strategy in this debate will be simple: I will show that from a Christian perspective, war is somtimes justified. This consitutes a refutation of pacifism in that it falsifies the idea that all wars are unjust or that Christians should always refrain from involvement in war. My opening argument will be short to leave room for other issues that might come up. ~A Christian Perspective on War I. Biblical JustificationAt first glance, one might argue that Jesus' teaching regarding "turning the other cheek" and "loving our neighbors as ourselves" (Matt 5:39; 22:39) obligates a Christian to a life of nonaggression. This, however, is mistaken. First, these teachings only apply to the level of the individiual, not the state. Indeed, in Romans 13:1-4, government is specifically entrusted with the responsibility to "bear the sword" and to provide for civil defense. A just government may therefore wage a just war. Second, the aforementioned teachings were intended as heuristrics, not absolutes. Thus, in the presence of a sufficient reason, Christians may legitimately engage in actions of self-defense. As Luke 22:36 indicates, Jesus himself actually commanded his followers to carry a sword for the purposes of self-defense. II. Bibilical WarfareThe Old Testament is filled with examples of warfare, many of which are endorsed explicitly by God. Indeed, God even acts as a commander, directing the Israelites as to what battle strategies to take and which targets to attack. In Joshua 10:12-27, he even held the sun in place so that Israel could continue to do battle. God himself commissions Judges who are commanded to wage war, and Gideon and Daniel were two examples of model biblical soldiers of whom God approved of. God is depicted as "a warrior who gives victory. " (Zeph. 3:17)To argue that the Old Testament conception of God is not applicable in New Testament times is to show a fundamental misunderstanding of the Bible. Although a new covenant is revealed, God remains the same -- indeed, he still retains his warlike characteristics, which is manifested in the book of Revelation. He retains his warlike characteristics. The fact that warfare can and has been carried out both with divine approval and divine involvement strongly lend to the notion that Christians may participate in war. III. Christian TraditionAlthough tradition is not fullproof, it does offer an insight as to what the early Christians thought about warfare. As we see in the early church fathers, there is a consensus toward the idea that Christians may justly participate in war. The church fathers Eusubius, Basil, Ambrose, and Origen all held to variants of the idea that Christians may participate in just wars. The burden of proof is therefore on my opponet to show that the Bible opposes Christian involvement in warfare. IV. Jus ad BellumJus as Bellum (literally: justice toward war), refers to the set of criteria that are used in determining whether a certain war is just. The Christian tradition has, for the large part, settled on the following criteria as indicative of what makes a war just:1. It must be carried about by a proper authority2. It must have a just cause3. It must have right intentions4. War must be the only reasonable way to the right the wrong5. There is a reasonable hope of successAccording to these criteria, a just war may only be carried out by a legitimate government with the proper intentions and goal in mind. Before going to war, all other alternatives ought to be tried and exhausted, and there must be a reasonable probability of winning the conflict. V. Jus in Bello Jus in Bello (literally: justice in war) refers to the set of criteria that are used in determining whether certain actions in a given war are just. The Christian tradition has, for the large part, settled on the following criteria as indicative of what constitutes permissible action within a just war:1. No intrinsically evil acts may be done2. Noncombatants and civilians must be given immunity3. Military action must be proportionate Acts performed within a just war are considered permissible only if they do not do evil for evil's sake (For example, targeting non-military targets would be considered wrong). Civilians and other non-military targets must be avoided, for they are not willing participants in a conflict. Finally, the action conducted against a country must be proportionate to the evil they have committed. We may not nuke a nation's capital simply because they bombed a village. ConclusionI have argued primarily through the use of Biblical sources that it is at times permissible for Christians to engage in warfare. This is provided that the conflict in question is just, in which case it must satisfy the criteria for jus ad bellum and jus in bello. I have also given several cursory responses to pacifist arguments which may come up, and I now turn the debate over to my opponent. _________References1. Darrell Cole, When God Says War is Right (Colorado Springs, Colorado: Waterbrook. 2002) 2. Wayne Grudem, Politics According to the Bible (Zondervan 2010)