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

Biblical Justification Con counters my point on criminal punishment by stating that God does not qualify upon whom authority may be exercised, and that a state is therefore allowed to, for example, punish a government "that is carrying out systematic genocide". However, Con is incorrectly under the impression that God grants authority to governments to be used against wrongdoers in general, rather than against the people under said authority. God specifically states, "Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities..." This means that one must follow the authorities which one is subscribed under, it cannot mean that I am subject to the laws of all nations, and that in breaking a law of Italy they would be correct in punishing me. It was not America's duty, nor was it our right to invade Iraq seeking out Saddam Hussein. Not because he was not a "wrongdoer", but because America was not his own governing authority. Biblical Warfare Con's argument concerning David not being allowed to build a temple relies on the incorrect notion that a temple is intrinsically a "house of peace". This cannot be true, as the only way through which a temple could be an excursively peaceful place is if Judaism were an exclusively peaceful religion, which is what Con is attempting to disprove. Furthermore, research into the Jewish faith shows that a temple is for community prayer, study, and worship*. While all of these involve tranquility, they do not require peace insofar as a lack of violence. If the reason David were excluded from building a Temple was that he were unqualified to lead a community into prayer, than many Christian men, including Pope Urban II, who initiated the crusades, would have been disallowed from running services by God. However, David was only disallowed because he was unworthy to build a temple. Con continues to claim the Christ advocated self-defense based on the fact that he asked his apostles to carry two swords. However, this simply cannot be true. Christ specifically says that two swords is enough. This would not have been enough for defense from arrest, but enough to be seen as bandits. He also rebukes Peter when Peter attempted to fight the Jews, "'Put your sword back in its place," Jesus said to him, "for all who draw the sword will die by the sword.'" Mathew25:52 "But Jesus answered, 'No more of this!' And he touched the man's ear and healed him." Luke 25:51 "Jesus commanded Peter, 'Put your sword away!'" John 18:11 The only reason for Jesus wishing to incriminate for no purpose would have been to fulfill the prophecy that he would be put into the rank of criminals*. Christian Tradition Both Con and I seem to accept the fact that past Christian have accepted war by far most often, however, the idea that pacifism is so rare in Christianity that I bear the burden of proof is not accurate. The Community of Christ, the Churches of Christ, Jehovah's Witnesses, the Fellowship of Reconciliation, the Seventh-day Adventist Church, and the Christadelphians all practice pacifism. In fact, Jehovah's witnesses alone have far more adherents that Judaism itself*. Jus Ad Bellum and Jus In Bello We are both in agreement that this not an argument bt rather an explanation tool Due to time constriants I cannot contrast your contradiction to my "pure ethics" argument I will address this in the next round. _________________________________________________________ http://www.religionfacts.com... http://www.loveyourenemies.org... http://www.google.com...