Christian Pacifism is incoherent

I very much appreciate you agreeing to debate this idea and that you are allowing me a chance to further explain. Best of luck to you as well. I love your screen name by the way.Anytime someone makes a claim about reality he is required to give reasons, evidence, and arguments in favor of that position. As I am making the claim that Christianity that demands pacifism is incoherent I have a burden of proof to show that. As my opponent is making the opposite claim he has the burden of proof to show that.So here is my argument.Argument: Claiming Christianity demands Christians be Pacifists conflicts with one of Christianity"s key tenants, its universality. Christianity holds that it is for everyone everywhere, so to demand that Christians be Pacifists is to require everyone everywhere be Pacifists. However, this undermines the universality of Christianity because some type of violence is required for any human society to function. So to maintain that Christians must be Pacifists requires that some people in the world (the people performing the necessary violence) either not be Christians or not follow their faith. Christianity is then not universal. If violence is necessary for any human society to function and if Christianity is for everyone, then not all Christians can be Pacifists. Some or perhaps even most Christians could be Pacifists, but they cannot all be.1. Human societies require at least some violent actions to function.2. Christianity claims it is for all human societies.3. Therefore, Christianity must allow for at least some violent actions. Terms: I am defining Christianity in the broad sense as everything that affirms the truth of grace through Christ"s death and resurrection and God"s revelation of himself in the Bible. This includes virtually all Protestant and Catholic denominations, but excludes groups like Mormons and Jehovah"s Witnesses. I am defining Pacifism as the strict adherence to non-violence in all circumstances. Not all people who call themselves Pacifists define the term this way. There are people who describe themselves as Pacifists who would use some forms of violence to defend their lives or their families" lives but always object to fighting in wars. The more tolerant of violence the Christian Pacifist becomes the less valid this argument is. Premise one: Violence is necessary for any human society to function. Many people are likely appalled by this, but it is true. Every human society has had (and needed) laws. Whether these laws are primarily social, legal, or cultural in nature does not matter. I am yet to find any serious person who will argue that a society without laws (in the broadest sense of the term) existed or that any group of people living together doesn"t need some set of rules. Even if those laws are things like, "the law of the jungle" or an unwritten and unspoken set of rules, they are still laws in every practical sense. Everyone agrees (at least I"ve found no one who disagrees, if anyone is aware of someone who does please let me know) that such rules are necessary. People who claim we don"t need laws usually mean that we don"t need written laws. They think that cultural and social laws or laws of common sense are enough. That may be, but the point is that at a practical level even these more basic rules function in way that is indistinguishable from a written code. I"ve never found an anarchist in the truest sense. They simply think that non-written laws are better than formal rules, but even these are still laws. Laws always require enforcement. Any law without enforcement is as useless as a rock band without instruments, a gun without bullets, or a day without coffee, or a Christianity without Christ. There are laws that say don"t murder or steal, but if nothing is done to prevent or deter the murder and the thief the laws are useless. The murder keeps killing and the thief keeps stealing. The point of a law is to prevent certain types of behavior or to make it unlikely the behavior will occur again. So to have laws makes some type of enforcement necessary. Law enforcement has taken a lot of different forms, but all of these forms can be traced back to violence or the threat of violence. All law enforcement takes its power from violence or the threat of violence, so it is impossible to enforce laws without violence. I am quite sure this statement will generate many objections, but I encourage any objector to trace back the forms of enforcement and punishment to their source. The source is always violence or the threat of violence. Violence and the threat of violence are indistinguishable in this sense. The threat only holds power if someone believes it will be carried out. If everyone only threatened violence and no one carried it out the threats would be useless. As an analogy, suppose all the police in a fictitious city were given orders to always threaten to shot suspects but never actually do it. Assuming that all the police followed the order, things would probably go well for a while. But eventually word would get around that Fictitious City Police threaten violence but never carry it out. Crime would probably rise and the police would be ineffective because they would have lost their power. While this is a fictitious example, the principal holds true. Threats of violence require actual violence backing them up to be effective. So threats of violence and actual violence are indistinguishable in this sense. Even something like a monetary fine as law enforcement is still a violent act at its core. Money is being forcibly taken from someone in a fine. If he refuses to pay the fine, law enforcement will have to use violence or threaten him so he will pay. Even if they only threaten to throw him in jail, that still requires violence. How else will the sentence be enforced if the man resists? Because societies always need laws and some type of violence to enforce them, some type of violence (however limited I hope) is always necessary for society to function. Premise two: Christianity claims it is universal. By this I mean that Christianity claims it is for the whole world. Not every religion makes this claim, but Christianity does. I doubt anyone who has studied Christianity will disagree with me here. There are numerous references in the Bible that make it plain that Christ and New Testament authors regarded Christianity as the way for all men (a non-gender specific use of "men" here). So Christianity is universal. Its scriptures claim it is, and its adherents claim it is, and historically it has made efforts to spread all over the world. Conclusion: The conclusion rests on the law of non-contradiction. A cannot be both A and non-A at the same time and in the same context. So Christianity cannot be universal and non-universal at the same time. It cannot demand an exceptional tenant (here I mean exceptional in the sense of "rare") and be universal. If Christianity demands both things, it just doesn't make sense and we should reject it. So I am forced to conclude that a version of Christianity that demands all Christians be Pacifists is self-defeating concept. Essentially;1. Human societies require at least some violent actions2. Christianity claims it is for all human societies3. Christianity must allow for at least some violent actions So I concluded that it is not logically valid to claim that following Christ demands Pacifism. So it seems to me that my opponent must show why my argument is false, either by disputing the premises or showing the logic is flawed, then in some way demonstrate how Christianity does require pacifism, and that there is nothing incoherent or contradictory in Christian Pacifism.