Do you believe in the concept of a 'Just War'.

[knerd]

The criteria for "Just War" are actually pretty demanding:

1.Just cause
2.Formally declared
3.Waged by a legitimate authority
4.Fought with peaceful intentions
5.A last resort
6.Reasonable hope of success
7.Means proportionate to the end
8.Immunity to noncombatants
9.Humane treatment of prisoners
10.International treaties and conventions honored

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just_war

Personally, I believe these rules are absoultely necessary if we are going to help mitigate the violence and brutality of war. Unfortunately most of these criteria have been subordinated to the grand delusion that violence is somehow redemptive.

As a Christian, I take comfort in the fact that the "Just War Theory" developed after Chrsitianity became part of the Roman Empire and was a creation of Augustine and later, Aquinas. Not Jesus of Nazareth and not his early followers.

 

[samuel]

Without sin in the world there would be no war. And no war that has ever been fought, probably met half of the criteria of the above post. Wars are sold to the public with lies, and deceptions. And are for someone's gain! regardless of the looks on the surface.

Since murder, and war are a product of sin, how do you justify war. The only way is to follow the thinking of the World, where what is just! is perceived as right in each mans own eyes. I don't recall the Lord saying if they abuse you, or rise up against you, "Kill Em All".

But Paul did say " We are counted as sheep to the slaughter". He did not say if they don't accept you, or agree with you, slaughter them. That's what the Koran says though.

 

[knerd]

Love your enmies.
He either said it or he didn't. We cannot have it both ways.

 

[Catholic Crusader]

There is no such thing as a Just War. No war has ever been fought by men, except it has undertones of Greed, Lust, or want of Power. If you can find any justice in these motives, I defer to you.

You don't think that it was "just" for us to drive the Nazis out of France and destroy the Third Reich? Would it have been better for us to sit by and let Hitler exterminate ALL the Jews?

Love your enmies.
He either said it or he didn't. We cannot have it both ways.

Unrealisitc. You don't sit back and "love" Hitler and let him commit genocide. Thats the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. Besides: Whose to say God wasnt using us to save the Jews

 

[samuel]

There seems to be a concept in Christianity, that has become lost. Paul tried to explain at Corinth, that the worlds business was not their buisness. And furthermore said those outside, were in Gods hands.

There used to be such a thing as conscientious objection, which relieved believers from war duties. Which was one of the things revealed by Peter, when the Holy Spirit spoke to him about the Gentile believers, and what responsibilities they should have. That they should not be responsible! for the shedding of blood.

As for Hitler, and the Japanese leader, whose name I will not attempt to spell. I truly believe! this is one reason for the USA to have come into existence. Just as Rome had a part to play, in the workings of God.

But there always will be enough dead, to bury the dead (make war), this is not the job of the Saints.

You can't have it both ways, its either Gods way or the Worlds way, which you choose is up to you.

 

[Catholic Crusader]

...this is not the job of the Saints. You can't have it both ways, its either Gods way or the Worlds way, which you choose is up to you.

So, if you were President back then, and you knew Hitler was exterminating the Jews, would you just sit on your hands and do nothing?

Or, if you were President, and another country declared waron us, would you just sit on your hands and surrender?

 

[Paidion]

Non sequitor. If you attend any church, even a stand-alone church, they are in effect a sect/denomination by reason of whatever their beliefs are

As far as far as sects/denominations go, I am non serviam.

You are wrong again. In spite of Catholic thought, The Catholic Church is not equivalent to the CHURCH which Christ founded, whereas everything else is sectarian or heretical. I agree that the Catholic Church can trace its origins to the CHURCH, but there was a gradual development away from what the CHURCH was in apostolic days.

It is necessary to express the CHURCH for what it really is, and it is not the Catholic, Orthodox, or Protestant aberrations. You can't get around the fact that the institution you join is a man-made organization, whether it is a Catholic organization, an Orthodox organization, a Protestant organization, a Mormon organization, or the Watchtower organization. On the other hand the CHURCH is a God-formed organism, which people do not join. God joins people to it as is stated in the book of Acts.

The CHURCH is not divided into denominations, in spite of the denominational concept that it is.
The CHURCH is ONE. There is only ONE. Christ did not found a whole bunch of sects. He is the authority in His CHURCH and He leads it through His Spirit. His apostles have also appointed overseers and deacons in His CHURCH. So a true local expression of the CHURCH will have overseers and deacons. So you analogy concerning Americans, etc. is inappropriate.

I suspect, CC, that you refuse to recognize the CHURCH. So if any one claims to belong to it, you relegate them to your categories of Catholic, Orthodox, or Protestant. Howerver, there are many members of the true CHURCH who do not fit into your categories.

 

[samuel]

You are opening another whole can of beans, with that question. But the answer is - I would not be president, or even desire to be.

I would not want to be in any position, where I would have to make compromise. And neither would anyone, who had a clear understanding of Gods word. You cannot serve two masters, and of course the better one is God, not man, or his world.

 

[Catholic Crusader]

You are opening another whole can of beans, with that question. But the answer is - I would not be president, or even desire to be.

I would not want to be in any position, where I would have to make compromise. And neither would anyone, who had a clear understanding of Gods word. You cannot serve two masters, and of course the better one is God, not man, or his world.

Okay, let me put it in different terms: Some gang members invade your home. You hear screams from another room. Your wife and daughters are being violated. The only way to stop it is to pull out your gun and rush in with the element of surprise, because they are armed too.

So, do you do it, and blow their brains out? Or do you "turn the other" cheek and let your family suffer?

 

[samuel]

These questions remind me of the ones Satan posed to Christ, in the wilderness. They are loaded! to cause one to stumble into a trap of inconsistancy.

What I, or anyone else would do in such a situation, has nothing to do with a determined committed war. This is a response, to of a moment of urgency. Regardless of the outcome, I would still not say it was justified, as not many things are in a world of injustice.

 

[KenEOTE]

I do not think the God of the Bible is against war. Look at the OT. There were plenty of wars that God not only sanctioned but told Israel to go into. Jesus even praised the centurion, for his faith he never once told men to pull out of the army. In fact the sole purpose of Government is to protect us, via the military and police, fire department and the like. God is not against war, he is against in justice and the suffering of people at the hands of dictators.

 

[knerd]

There is no such thing as a Just War. No war has ever been fought by men, except it has undertones of Greed, Lust, or want of Power. If you can find any justice in these motives, I defer to you.

You don't think that it was "just" for us to drive the Nazis out of France and destroy the Third Reich? Would it have been better for us to sit by and let Hitler exterminate ALL the Jews?

Love your enmies.
He either said it or he didn't. We cannot have it both ways.

Unrealisitc. You don't sit back and "love" Hitler and let him commit genocide. Thats the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. Besides: Whose to say God wasnt using us to save the Jews

Unrealistic? Welcome to taking up the cross and following Jesus.

Nonviolence works. It just hasn't been tried because most of us are still living in the mythology that violence redeems us.

Everytime non-violence was tried in World War II it worked. Thousands of Jews were saved because of it.

Jesus knew what he was talking about.

 

[Catholic Crusader]

Okay, let me put it in different terms: Some gang members invade your home. You hear screams from another room. Your wife and daughters are being violated. The only way to stop it is to pull out your gun and rush in with the element of surprise, because they are armed too.

So, do you do it, and blow their brains out? Or do you "turn the other" cheek and let your family suffer?

These questions remind me of the ones Satan posed to Christ, in the wilderness. They are loaded! to cause one to stumble into a trap of inconsistancy.

What I, or anyone else would do in such a situation, has nothing to do with a determined committed war.....

YES it does, because it has to do with SELF DEFENSE. The whole "just war" doctrine revolves around a nation's right to self defense. Whether its on a national scale, or whether its on the personal level as I laid out, its still the same principal: Will you fight to defend others to protect them, or will you stand by and let them suffer at the hands of evil men?

So I ask again: What would you do in the scenario I put forth? Its not a "test" from the devil, its a real question from me: What would you do? Are you going to protect your family and kill the invaders, or are you going to stand by and see them suffer?

I will answer first, because to me its a no-brainer: I'LL DEFEND MY FAMILY! That is my duty as a man and a husband. If I was cowardly enough to hide in the shadows and let my wife be violated, I wouldnt consider myself worthy of even living.

...Nonviolence works. It just hasn't been tried because most of us are still living in the mythology that violence redeems us.....

Non violence would not have freed Europe from Hitler's grip. If you think it would have, you are living in a fantasy. For that matter, "violence" is the only reason you have free speech and freedom to worship as you please today: The "violence" of the Revolutionary War. Men shed their blood for your freedom.

A war of agression and conquest is wrong. But, when the agressor comes after YOU and your family and neighbors, there is nothing un-Christian about defending your land.

But, if your so hot on non-violence, why don't you take a plane ride to Afghanistan, cross over to Pakistan, and make nice-nice with Bin Laden. Put your money where your mouth is. When (or if) you get back, let us know how it went.

 

[knerd]

Non violence would not have freed Europe from Hitler's grip. If you think it would have, you are living in a fantasy. For that matter, "violence" is the only reason you have free speech and freedom to worship as you please today: The "violence" of the Revolutionary War. Men shed their blood for your freedom.

A war of agression and conquest is wrong. But, when the agressor comes after YOU and your family and neighbors, there is nothing un-Christian about defending your land.

But, if your so hot on non-violence, why don't you take a plane ride to Afghanistan, cross over to Pakistan, and make nice-nice with Bin Laden. Put your money where your mouth is. When (or if) you get back, let us know how it went.

As I mentioned before, whenever nonviolence was tried during the Second World War, it freed many from "Hitler's grip."

But I do agree: It is difficult to take Jesus seriously. Our society is so enamored of the myth of violence being somehow "redemptive" that any other path seems impossible and even silly.

Remember, the early Christians did not fight in the Roman army. It was only after the Romans decreed Christianity the faith of the empire that the concept of the "Just War" had to arise to sanction war and violence as part of the new religion. And then in the Fourth Century, one could not be a soldier unless one was a Christian.

Your comment about wishing me a trip to Afghanistan sounded sarcastic. Did you mean it that way?

In any event, when Jesus travelled the hamlets of lower Galilee, some called him the Son of God, some called him naiive, some called him a threat. So some things haven't changed.

 

[Rick W]

I don't think Christ ever addressed the issue of service to one's country or nation. Most if not all of His ministry focused on the individual and how we should interact with others around us on a daily basis.
I believe He did mention being submissive to higher authority who would be judged for their own deeds in the role of leadership apart from those under them. That's about as close as He got concerning the law of the land so-to-speak.
In the US I believe there are laws concerning one's religion and if the parameters are met one can acquire the status of a conscientious objector where one may accept a non-combatant position. So in this case the Christian who believes violence to be wrong can exercise his/her beliefs and still remain within the law.
I believe God would not put one of His own in a position that he/she could not handle. And I also believe God calls to duty as He sees fit. If it's His will that one is to act as protector for His people then the Spirit will lead in that direction. If not then the spiritual desire for that duty will not be there. Some are called to serve in some capacity while others are not.

I don't believe it wise to put down another brother or attempt to dissuade him of his call to service for his country if such is the case. We have no way of knowing what God may have put into his heart. He's a brother none-the-less worthy of our respect, support and edification. If it is for an unjust war then he cannot be held accountable but his authorities can and will be judged.

 

[Catholic Crusader]

As I mentioned before, whenever nonviolence was tried during the Second World War, it freed many from "Hitler's grip."

Name one country that with liberated from the Nazis non-violently. In fact, non-violence allowed two contries to actually FALL INTO Hitler's grip: Austria and Czechloslovakia, thanks to that sissy Neville Chamberlain. Ya, non-violence really did those guys a lot of good.

But I do agree: It is difficult to take Jesus seriously. Our society is so enamored of the myth of violence being somehow "redemptive" that any other path seems impossible and even silly.

I don't know one person who thinks violence is "redemptive". Thats not the issue here.

Remember, the early Christians did not fight in the Roman army....

Thats because you had to burn incense to Caesar. But today you can worshio as you please. Besides, how do you know what every single Chriastian did for 300 hundred years? What is that statement based on? You have proof that no Christian ever fought?

Your comment about wishing me a trip to Afghanistan sounded sarcastic. Did you mean it that way?

Nope. Act your convictions if you think you're right. I have.

...In any event, when Jesus travelled the hamlets of lower Galilee, some called him the Son of God, some called him naiive, some called him a threat. So some things haven't changed.

Jesus is no threat to me. I am an adopted son of God, and Christ is my Lord. The threat comes from people who hide behind Jesus in order to shirk their duties as a man.

 

[knerd]

As I mentioned before, whenever nonviolence was tried during the Second World War, it freed many from "Hitler's grip."

Name on country that with liberated from the Nazis non-violently. In fact, non-violence allowed two contries to actually FALL INTO Hitler's grip: Austria and Czechloslovakia, thanks to that sissy Neville Chamberlain. Ya, non-violence really did those guys a lot of good.

But I do agree: It is difficult to take Jesus seriously. Our society is so enamored of the myth of violence being somehow "redemptive" that any other path seems impossible and even silly.

I don't know one person who thinks violence is "redemptive". Thats not the issue here.

Remember, the early Christians did not fight in the Roman army....

Thats because you had to burn incense to Caesar. But today you can worshio as you please. Besides, how do you know what every single Chriastian did for 300 hundred years? What is that statement based on? You have proof that no Christian ever fought?

Your comment about wishing me a trip to Afghanistan sounded sarcastic. Did you mean it that way?

Nope. Act your convictions if you think you're right. I have.

...In any event, when Jesus travelled the hamlets of lower Galilee, some called him the Son of God, some called him naiive, some called him a threat. So some things haven't changed.

Jesus is no threat to me. I am an adopted son of God, and Christ is my Lord. The threat comes from people who hide behind Jesus in order to shirk their duties as a man.

I can't blame you for thinking the way you do. You're certainly not alone.

 

[Hezekiah]

Thanks for the contributions so far.

knerd, I think it is a fair question as to how a Christian should respond to agression, be it on a macro level (warfare) or on an individual basis (self-defense). If I may ask, do you take a strict nonresistance position in all cases? If so, may I ask what denomination, theological school of thought or personal convictions lead you to this position?

Thank you.

 

[knerd]

Thanks for the contributions so far.

knerd, I think it is a fair question as to how a Christian should respond to agression, be it on a macro level (warfare) or on an individual basis (self-defense).

I am not morally strong enough to always resist the lure of revenge and cruelty--at least by myself.

If I may ask, do you take a strict nonresistance position in all cases?

The short answer is "one day at a time." Here's what I have learned:

At first I thought that Jesus' admonishion to "not resist an evildoer" as in Matthew 5:39 was limp-wristed passivity. But the Greek word translated as "resist" is antistenai--literally, to "stand against." In Epehsians 6:13 it is used as a technical term of warfare and means to violently revolt or to engage in armed insurrection. One of the reasons for King James' new biblical translation was James' fear that parts of the Geneva Bible translation sanctioned disobedience of a tyrant.

Jesus' words and deeds counsel a nonviolent assertiveness. And the earliest New Testament epistles urge us not to "repay evil for evil." 1 Peter 3:9, Romans 12:17 and Thessalonians 5:15 can be summed up by "Don't react violently against the one who is evil."

If so, may I ask what denomination, theological school of thought or personal convictions lead you to this position?

Thank you.

I became a conscientious objector when I was younger and did a lot of study of our Christian history and tradition of nonviolence. The problem is that once the Emperor Constantine declared Christianity as the official faith of the Roman Empire, the simple "way" of Jesus and his followers got left behind. My own church affiliations are varied: FourSquare Gospel, Methodist, Congregational are all part of my checkered past. The creeds I learned to recite at these churches had an "empty center" because they said nothing in them about Jesus' teachings, his parables, his short sayings and his sense of humor.

Now I am more and more interested in the religion OF Jesus and far less interested in the religion ABOUT Jesus.

 

[Drew]

But I do agree: It is difficult to take Jesus seriously. Our society is so enamored of the myth of violence being somehow "redemptive" that any other path seems impossible and even silly.

Man, perhaps I am in a charitable mood, but there have some excellent posts in this thread. The above is an example - a correct insight in my opinion, along with something you said about how non-violence works. I do indeed think that it is entirely likely that we dismiss non-violence as hopelessly naive and simply refuse to actually engage the history of its use to see what happened. Although I have great sympathy for the appeal of the argument that if you don't "fight back", evil will take over the world, I am aware of the possibility that. like millions of others, I simply dismiss pacifism as unrealistic, without actually looking "at the data".

And I see all this from a position of believing, just barely, in the notion of a just defensive war in exceedingly special circumstances.