War And Christianity.

[farouk]

Joe and his wife Tiffani are American, and both are born again. Let's just pretend that Canada is (fictionally) an aggressor, throwing Canada's supposed Imperial weight around, and invades the North East Angle, Minnesota. The US, with Joe and maybe his wife, too, in the forces, understandably fights the hypothetical Canadian aggressors. Both Joe and Tiffani have Christian fish tattoos on their wrists.

In the Canadian military, there is a guy called Joe, and he is a born again Christian, too, and his wife Nikki as well. Both Joe and Nikki have similar tattoos to Joe and Tiffani. (You get the picture.)

And so hypothetically you get brother fighting brother.

It's understandable for nations to defend themselves from aggression.

But I can also understand that brother fighting brother is also wrong.

I can't see how these two aspects can be reconciled. It's a conundrum and I don't have all the answers.

 

[aha]

It's understandable for nations to defend themselves from aggression.

But I can also understand that brother fighting brother is also wrong.

I can't see how these two aspects can be reconciled. It's a conundrum and I don't have all the answers.

Just to clarify my post earlier #20: am always referring always to a group of living entity with life and blood..... not a political legal entity.

I think you used “nation” there in red as a political legal entity.

Am referring to my earlier post “nation” as in fighting off a genocide is a just war. In my opinion…

 

[farouk]

Just to clarify my post earlier #20: am always referring always to a group of living entity with life and blood..... not a political legal entity.

I think you used “nation” there in red as a political legal entity.

Am referring to my earlier post “nation” as in fighting off a genocide is a just war. In my opinion…

Interesting.

I guess there are many aspects.

But I wouldn't want to shoot a brother in Christ.

 

[the_patriot13]

Here are some quick questions. I may be biting off my than I can chew because I suspect I'll get some really strenuously wordy answers, but I'm willing to take that risk.

Here are the questions--hopefully they are clear:

1. Is war every justified? If so, when?
   
2. If the enemy uses torture techniques, is it just for us to do the same?
3. When is it OK for us to be the aggressor?
   
4. does Probability of success matter in war?
5. Can conquest be justified in war?
6. If there's a great risk of war being perpetual, shall it be pursued?

Happy discussing, friends!

I think there are cases where it is justified. You see several times in the OT where God sent the Israelites to war. I think, anytime the security of your nation is at risk if you don't go to war, its justified, and maybe some cases where if you dont millions will die.

Second question, no. its not. two wrongs do not make a right.

When is it ok to be the aggressor? goes back to question one. If it will save the lives of millions-or it affects national security. Can even go to question number four on this, if you know the enemy has a nuke-and is intending to use it on you, and they have a larger military and tactical advantage on you, sometimes its best to attack first-when they don't expect it.

And for question 4, it depends on the war. If its a case of your either going to war or the other country will take yours and rape all your women, well I don't see you having much of a choice. And if you go back to 1776, the US states had little probability of success. Also, if you think that it is morally right to step up, then if you ask me, theres no choice.

5 and six Im going to answer at once. If you invade another country, you should only do 1 of 2 things. The first is, go in, eliminate the threat, and pull out-let them pick up the pieces. or 2: colonize. And thats it, none of this go in eliminate the threat and then pansy around and try to rebuild them the way we want it rebuilt. In todays age, with most of the wars the US has been in, has been with smaller countries with weaker militarys, and theres no reason for perpetual war. Iraq. Afghanistan. To heck with politics, we should have just gone in, eliminated the threat-whether it be Hussein or Laden, and pulled out. period. The only reason "perpetual" wars exist is because of 2 reasons:

1: unwillingness to fight to win. We saw this in korea and vietnam. We had the ability to completly anihilate the enemy. due to political pressures and the like, we did not. It is foolish to enter a war without the want to win it.

2: some misplaced sense of justice in needing to "rebuild" the country. A lot of countries just dont want democracy, they won't accept it. if they dont ask for our help, stay out.

 

[LysanderShapiro]

I think these are some interesting statements in regards to war and Christianity.

I suppose I should make it clear that I'm not quite talking about the soldiers who are sent out to fight, but rather those who have the authority to either 1) wage war or 2) respond to someone else's wage.

 

[aha]

1: unwillingness to fight to win. We saw this in korea and vietnam.

It is interesting to note the Vietnamese people calls it "American War" rather than "Vietnam War".

 

[the_patriot13]

a lot of that, depends on what side is saying that. To the north-yes, it was the american war, because they were fighting america. and since they won, well, to them it is the american war. Just like the american revolution-in reality it was a civil war, and if britain had won, thats what it would have been called, and we would have just been called the rebels. Since america won, it was labeled the "revolution". history is written by the victor.

 

[LysanderShapiro]

Where do you folks stand on the drone strikes in countries where no declaration of war has been issued?

 

[the_patriot13]

if there is no threat we should not be there. period. that includes drone strikes.

 

[farouk]

Where do you folks stand on the drone strikes in countries where no declaration of war has been issued?

It is hard to be exact.

We must remember also the dictum: "In war, truth is the first casualty."

Obviously at some level a drone strike has a compelling reason behind it. If it hits a mass murderer, and no one else, it will be retrospectively regarded as well justified. If the mass murderer wasn't in town after all, and the drone hits a bunch of innocent folk, it will be retrospectively regarded as an inexcusable act of aggression. (The leader that orders the strike doesn't know in advance if it will be accurate or not; it's basically like saying: 'May this moral gray area seem compelling.)

 

[LysanderShapiro]

It is hard to be exact.

We must remember also the dictum: "In war, truth is the first casualty."

Obviously at some level a drone strike has a compelling reason behind it. If it hits a mass murderer, and no one else, it will be retrospectively regarded as well justified. If the mass murderer wasn't in town after all, and the drone hits a bunch of innocent folk, it will be retrospectively regarded as an inexcusable act of aggression. (The leader that orders the strike doesn't know in advance if it will be accurate or not; it's basically like saying: 'May this moral gray area seem compelling.)

Without a declaration of war?

 

[Major]

Where do you folks stand on the drone strikes in countries where no declaration of war has been issued?

All war is first political.

IF the president in office total was a conservative Republican, all you would hear would be the condemnation of such strikes.
But since it is a liberal Dem. you were almost nothing at all.

As for a declaration of war, I would like to remind all of us of the Vietnam war where the NVA would stock pile war materials and men in Cambodia and Laos and then retreat to those countries for safety and resupply.

The men in the battle of Khe Sahn in 1968 were shelled by NVA 155 artilliery from caves in mountains in Laos who were not at war with. We could not reach them because at that time we only had 105's which left us about 3 miles short. We only won that battle and saved hundreds of American lives by bombing the enemy in a neutral country by air. They chose to use/hide in Laos so we had to go where they were.

 

[Beagler]

Hi, let me introduce a possible theory,
Jesus talked about the destruction of the Jewish temple and Israel as a nation scattered. This happened in 70AD as He had prophesied as did the OT prophets. The jews then scattered looked to Europe as its new homeland but the OT prophets said that God would gather his people and plant them back in the land with all His heart. What was the driving force that after centuries of persecution of the Jewish people that brought about the return of the people of Israel to their homeland. May I suggest World war II and the terrible holocaust. Europe was no longer a safe haven and so where did the Jewish survivors feel the need to go? Back to their homeland. Scripture prophesied that "see I will gather them from the four corners of the earth. I will say to the North (north of Israel and you get to Russia) give them up and to the South do not hold them back. Thousands of Jews from all over the world feel a need to return to Israel. My point is Was this a result of War and so part of God's plan?

 

[farouk]

Without a declaration of war?

We are now getting into the area of anti-terrorism, and also maybe the status of co-belligerents (in World War Two, for example, when Fascist Italy was knocked out of the war, those Italians who fought with the Allies against the Nazi German occupiers were known as co-belligerents.)

In some circumstances actions which fall formally outside those of a state declaring war have compelling reasons.

It's hard, I know.

 

[farouk]

Hi, let me introduce a possible theory,
Jesus talked about the destruction of the Jewish temple and Israel as a nation scattered. This happened in 70AD as He had prophesied as did the OT prophets. The jews then scattered looked to Europe as its new homeland but the OT prophets said that God would gather his people and plant them back in the land with all His heart. What was the driving force that after centuries of persecution of the Jewish people that brought about the return of the people of Israel to their homeland. May I suggest World war II and the terrible holocaust. Europe was no longer a safe haven and so where did the Jewish survivors feel the need to go? Back to their homeland. Scripture prophesied that "see I will gather them from the four corners of the earth. I will say to the North (north of Israel and you get to Russia) give them up and to the South do not hold them back. Thousands of Jews from all over the world feel a need to return to Israel. My point is Was this a result of War and so part of God's plan?

Hi there. What you say is interesting, but I don't see 1948 as the complete fulfilment of the gathering from the four corners of the earth. Whether it led to a partial preparation to the fulfilment is another matter.

 

[LysanderShapiro]

All war is first political.

IF the president in office total was a conservative Republican, all you would hear would be the condemnation of such strikes.
But since it is a liberal Dem. you were almost nothing at all.

Sadly, this is true. A lot of people who protested the wars under the Bush administration has vanished ever since the Obama administration begun.

My perspective is that war can be justified, but only under dire circumstances--when all peaceful measures have been attempted. And a war cannot commence without proper declaration (like a congressional approval). Interventionism though is a dangerous thing 1) for the financial burdens that can come about (the Forgotten Depression of 1920 was greatly caused by intervention in WWI), and 2) the possibility of blowback which can a lead to more war.

I remember hearing someone a couple years ago compare recent drone strikes to abortion. It sounds weird, but his comparison was that many people who support abortion say "well, I don't like it, but it's not REALLY a human yet, and it's for the greater good." The comparison was that with drone attacks that have unfortunately been operated so sloppily, the response by those in support of it would say, "well, they were kind of in the way," or "it's a question of who's children dies--ours or theirs?"

The early church often expressed real caution when going into war also because of the destruction it can cause to the family, which itself is the domestic church.

 

[farouk]

Sadly, this is true. A lot of people who protested the wars under the Bush administration has vanished ever since the Obama administration begun.

My perspective is that war can be justified, but only under dire circumstances--when all peaceful measures have been attempted. And a war cannot commence without proper declaration (like a congressional approval). Interventionism though is a dangerous thing 1) for the financial burdens that can come about (the Forgotten Depression of 1920 was greatly caused by intervention in WWI), and 2) the possibility of blowback which can a lead to more war.

I remember hearing someone a couple years ago compare recent drone strikes to abortion. It sounds weird, but his comparison was that many people who support abortion say "well, I don't like it, but it's not REALLY a human yet, and it's for the greater good." The comparison was that with drone attacks that have unfortunately been operated so sloppily, the response by those in support of it would say, "well, they were kind of in the way," or "it's a question of who's children dies--ours or theirs?"

The early church often expressed real caution when going into war also because of the destruction it can cause to the family, which itself is the domestic church.

Interesting.

Although there is a warm feeling to talking about a 'national family', yet in terms of a church and a state with a military, I also think it's apples and oranges. Historically, of course, the state and the professing church has been in alliance to sometimes very questionable extents; e.g., in the Crusades.

I'm also reminded of the dictum of Blaise Pascal: 'Truth on this side of the Pyrenees, error on the other side'. (In other words, when justifying war and foreign policy, what may seem absolutely wrong on one side of a border may seem really compelling on the other side. Reason of state is really very different from spiritual truth and morality, even if leaders sometimes use the discourse of morality to try to present their justifications.)

 

[LysanderShapiro]

Interesting.

Although there is a warm feeling to talking about a 'national family', yet in terms of a church and a state with a military, I also think it's apples and oranges. Historically, of course, the state and the professing church has been in alliance to sometimes very questionable extents; e.g., in the Crusades.

Indeed. But this is why war shouldn't be dismissed altogether when there is a just cause behind it. The Crusades were acting in response to conquest--not in attempt to conquer. In other words, in defense of faith, not in mission to control others'.

 

[farouk]

Indeed. But this is why war shouldn't be dismissed altogether when there is a just cause behind it. The Crusades were acting in response to conquest--not in attempt to conquer. In other words, in defense of faith, not in mission to control others'.

Not all historians would agree.

There is also the matter of the political status of Jerusalem. Is going to war over Jerusalem really part of the Biblical mandate of evangelism, within a framework where religion and state should be separate anyway? Historically, there are widely divergent, inherited views on this.

 

[Stan]

If a concept makes it “right” for an individual to defend himself …. is that same concept will it "right" as well applied to a group of individual, his household, a community, a nation?
I think so.

As I said one does NOT make the other justifiable.