Canadasgenius, I want to make it clear that I never said that "a Christian can participate in a military or police force without questioning the morality of anything." Acts 5:29 still applies: "We ought to obey God rather than men." There may be wars or other matters in which a Christian cannot participate, and certainly one should consider this before joining the military. I personally would not join the military, and I think it is overall a bad decision for a Christian to join the military. I say this mostly because the military is an environment that overall is not conducive to Christianity (whether killing were occurring or not). Paul warns us also that "evil companionships corrupt good morals" (1 Corinthians 15:33), and it is spiritually dangerous to place one's self into such a situation in my opinion.

It should also be stated that if any Christian considers it sinful to join the military, then by all means, he should not join. If he does, then he is committing sin because he is violating his own conscience: "And he that doubteth is damned if he eat, because he eateth not of faith: for whatsoever is not of faith is sin" (Romans 14:23). Paul also taught in Romans 14 that some matters may be sinful to one brother, and innocent to another brother, depending on whether or not it violates his conscience. These are matters of personal judgment, and I know many who believe that the question of pacifism falls into the Romans 14 category. In other words, if it violates your conscience to join the military, then you absolutely should not join if you want to go to Heaven; but if it does not violate your conscience to join, then you may join as long as you do nothing to violate the New Testament Scriptures. On the other hand, Romans 14 also teaches that in matters of personal judgment, the person whose conscience is violated is not allowed to bind his judgment on others and condemn them for their decision to join the military. A person on either side of the issue would not be allowed to bind his opinion on others. We also should not allow matters of personal judgment to divide followers of Christ, which is why I was a little hesitant to even discuss this on this forum which Christians read, but if we can all walk away with a better understanding of the Scriptures while agreeing to disagree on matters of personal judgment, then perhaps it will have been worth the discussion.

As far as one "faithful non-pacifist Christian" killing another in a war in which they both believe their cause to be just, I do not think this happens very often, but perhaps Romans 14:5 applies: "One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind" (Romans 14:5). In matters of judgment, as long as neither person is violating his conscience, and each man is fully persuaded in his own mind, they will both go to Heaven. In the end, Christ will have to judge them, and "shall not the judge of all the earth do right?" (Genesis 18:25). "But why dost thou judge thy brother? or why dost thou set at nought thy brother? for we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ" (Romans 14:10).

When we talk about "killing" and "murder," we also need to remember that death is not the end. The world sees death as a horrible end, but to all children and to all faithful Christians it is the most wonderful beginning, so the death of a Christian is really not that horrible of an event when one thinks of eternity. A murderer can go to jail, then become a faithful Christian, and then be put to death for his crime by the "powers that be," but He will be in Heaven. I guess all I am saying is that Christians should view death differently than the world does.

About Jesus and swords: If Jesus taught that it was always sinful to use a sword, then would not He and His followers have looked hypocritical by carrying swords? If a person can go to Hell for using a pistol today, would a Christian set a good example by carrying one on his hip? That violates many Scriptures regarding not causing your brother to stumble, not letting your good be evil spoken of, and abstaining from all appearance of evil:

Romans 14:13-16
(13). Let us not therefore judge one another any more: but judge this rather, that no man put a stumblingblock or an occasion to fall in his brother's way.
(14). I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing unclean of itself: but to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him it is unclean.
(15). But if thy brother be grieved with thy meat, now walkest thou not charitably. Destroy not him with thy meat, for whom Christ died.
(16). Let not then your good be evil spoken of:

"Abstain from all appearance of evil" (1 Thessalonians 5:22).

You said, "You will note that when one of Jesus' followers used his sword, he was rebuked by Jesus… Notice how Jesus did not defend Himself, nor did He allow his disciples or angels to do so, when he was arrested. Earlier in His ministry, he similarly only ran away or slipped away from his attackers." It was not time for Him to go to the cross yet, and He was not there to offensively fight for an earthly kingdom. I had previously explained that the swords were carried for self-defense, not for an offensive attack (See John 18:36). It is interesting that Jesus said that His servants would fight if He were there to set up an earthly kingdom. They were not to fight for his freedom, because it was the Father's will for Jesus to die on the cross for all of us and establish the spiritual kingdom, and Christ understood that.

You made a reference to being at peace with all men, and not repaying evil for evil. You may have been referring a passage such as this one: "Recompense to no man evil for evil. Provide things honest in the sight of all men. If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men. Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord" (Romans 12:17-19).

We are to try to be at peace with all men (if possible), and we do not go out looking to avenge some evil deed that was done to us. This context is talking about vengeance, but vengeance and defense are two completely separate issues! Vengeance takes place after the wrong has been done, while defense can prevent lives from being taken.

You mentioned turning the other cheek (Matthew 5:39). Slapping was a common form of insulting someone (1 Kings 22:24; Lam. 3:30; Matthew 26:67; John 18:22; John 19:3). Jesus is not talking about defense in life threatening situations in that context. He is discussing more trivial matters, for which the Jews would often seek their own personal vengeance. He is teaching against personal vengeance, not against defense in life threatening situations. I think Barnes explains it well in his commentary:

"Mat 5:38-41 - An eye for an eye ... - This command is found in Exo. 21:24; Lev. 24:20, and Deu. 19:21. In these places it was given as a rule to regulate the decisions of judges. They were to take eye for eye, and tooth for tooth, and to inflict burning for burning. As a judicial rule it is not unjust. Christ finds no fault with the rule as applied to magistrates, and does not take upon himself to repeal it. But instead of confining it to magistrates, the Jews had extended it to private conduct, and made it the rule by which to take revenge. They considered themselves justified by this rule to inflict the same injury on others that they had received. Our Saviour remonstrates against this. He declares that the law had no reference to private revenge, that it was given only to regulate the magistrate, and that their private conduct was to be governed by different principles.
The general principle which he laid down was, that we are not to resist evil; that is, as it is in the Greek, nor to set ourselves against an evil person who is injuring us. But even this general direction is not to be pressed too strictly. Christ did not intend to teach that we are to see our families murdered, or be murdered ourselves; rather than to make resistance. The law of nature, and all laws, human and divine, justify self-defense when life is in danger. It cannot surely be the intention to teach that a father should sit by coolly and see his family butchered by savages, and not be allowed to defend them. Neither natural nor revealed religion ever did, or ever can, inculcate this doctrine. Our Saviour immediately explains what he means by it. Had he intended to refer it to a case where life is in danger, he would most surely have mentioned it. Such a case was far more worthy of statement than those which he did mention.
A doctrine so unusual, so unlike all that the world had believed, and that the best people had acted on, deserved to be formally stated. Instead of doing this, however, he confines himself to smaller matters, to things of comparatively trivial interest, and says that in these we had better take wrong than to enter into strife and lawsuits. The first case is where we are smitten on the cheek. Rather than contend and fight, we should take it patiently, and turn the other cheek. This does not, however, prevent our remonstrating firmly yet mildly on the injustice of the thing, and insisting that justice should be done us, as is evident from the example of the Saviour himself. See John 18:23. The second evil mentioned is where a man is litigious and determined to take all the advantage the law can give him, following us with vexatious and expensive lawsuits. Our Saviour directs us, rather than to imitate him rather than to contend with a revengeful spirit in courts of justice to take a trifling injury, and yield to him. This is merely a question about property, and not about conscience and life."

In regards to the centurions, Cornelius was called just, devout, one who feared God, etc. while he was still in the military.

I wanted to mention one conclusion of the view that being in the military is sinful. If it is sinful to be in the military, then faithful Christians who are not in the military have a responsibility to go to their military brethren to try to get them to repent and leave the military (Matthew 18:15-17; Galatians 6:1; James 5:19, 20; etc.). If they refuse to repent and quit the military, then we are required by the Scriptures to withdraw fellowship from every one of them, and treat them "as a heathen man and a publican" (Matthew 18:17; 2 Thessalonians 3:6, etc.). We would not be allowed to eat with them (1 Corinthians 5:11); and we would not be allowed to have company with them (2 Thessalonians 3:6, 14). That is, if being in the military is sinful.

Canadasgenius, I am not sure if you are married, or have children, but here are some questions:

1. If someone were trying to abduct your child, and your only chance to save your child would be to fight the criminal, would you fight, or watch your child be taken or harmed? If you would fight, you are not a pacifist.

2. Would you watch the criminal take your child out the door while you merely dial 911?

3. What if the police officer shoots the criminal? Should you have avoided calling them so that this killing could have been avoided?

4. What about your wife? Would you fight to defend her, or would you watch her get injured, killed, abused, or taken away? "Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave Himself for it" (Ephesians 5:25).

5. What about your mother?

6. What if all of our wives, children, and mothers were in danger? Should we as a nation fight to defend them, or let them be injured, killed, abused, or taken away?

7. Is the killing of people always sinful?

8. Pacifism teaches that all killing of humans is sinful, so did God sin when He killed Ananias and Sapphira?

9. You said, "The kingdom of Heaven is not one of murderers." Is God a murderer?

10. What about all the killing God did in the Old Testament? Was that wrong for Him to do that?

11. What about the killing done by God's people in the Old Testament? Should they not have done that?

12. Should we try to convert police officers and military personnel who are not Christians? If we converted them all to "pacifistic Christianity," who would be the "ministers of God" to "bear the sword" and punish the wicked?

13. You said that "Regardless of what army one is in, and in what position, an army is a "killing machine." Was God's army of the Old Testament a "killing machine"? If so, was that a bad thing or a good thing?

14. Has there ever been an occasion when killing someone was just and right?

15. When God said "Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man" (Genesis 9:6), why did He not say that the one to shed the blood had to be someone who was not one of His faithful followers? Obviously the followers of God had the right to kill in certain situations. As far as I am concerned, there is no indication that this is not also the case in the New Testament.

16. You said, "if the government tells you to kill someone, you must first obey God's command not to murder." Were not the Jews under God's command of "Thou shalt not murder" when they stoned the man to death for picking up sticks on the Sabbath? (Numbers 15). Were they in violation of the command "thou shalt not murder"? It seems that you may be misconstruing the definition of murder. Murder is defined as "Unlawful premeditated killing of a human being by a human being." Justice is defined as "The administration of law; the act of determining rights and assigning rewards or punishments." There is a difference between murder and just punishment.

17. Was God commanding the Jews to sin when He told them to kill the man mentioned in Numbers 15?

18. Should we withdraw from every brother in Christ who refuses to leave the military?

19. You quoted Swift, who called soldiers "yahoos." The word "yahoo" means "One of a race of brutes resembling men;" or "Not very intelligent or interested in culture." Was David a "yahoo"? What about Joshua, or Cornelius?

You said that "I didn't mean for this to become a debate on pacifism." I didn't either! – but as I said, hopefully we can benefit from this discussion.