Re: Re: Re: Reluctant Warriors: Christianity and the Just War Tradition
| Posted On: 05/16/06 06:17:40 AM |
Age 79, OH |
You say that God led the Israelites into battle. Quite the contrary, the Hebrews "wrote" that God led them the into battle, to justify their terrorism against the territories they "claimed falsely" that God had given to them.
It is time for you get past this Habiru mythology and relize that God is not a God of war but of peace and love. Jesus makes that quite clear, as he was trying to reform the Hebrew mentality.
Also, Jesus clearing the money changers out of the temple is harly war, another attempt to justify religious terror. Jesus did not kill anyone when he cleaned out the temple. Now it is about time that he clears out your fiction laden minds and follow Jesus as he really is. He is the Prince of Peace, not a war Lord.
|
Re: Reluctant Warriors: Christianity and the Just War Tradition
| Posted On: 09/08/05 10:36:56 AM |
Age 16, PA |
Dear Jason Carlson,I think a war can be found to be just or not by one rule, self-defense. When Israel made war against their enemies, God was with them and guiding them directly through his prophets. Today, we must go to war simply to protect our lives and liberties. Perhaps the problem is not whether the Iraq war is just or not. We were attacked by terrorists, but the problem may be the laws and restrictions enforced that limit our ability to defend ourselves individually. If everyone was allowed to carry a weapon with them on those planes, how far do you think those terrorists would've gone? I can guarantee that the honest citizens outnumber the criminals and terrorists. Would the terrorists have tried to hi-jack those planes if everyone was armed? Could it be our gun safety legislation that got us in this war in the first place? Like you said in your article, the only just war is a defensive war, but I believe this country has violated that tradition in going to war in Iraq. On the one hand the government, through gun safety laws, inhibits our ability to defend ourselves from terrorists, and then it takes our soldiers over to a foreign country to fight a war that we call defensive. My conclusion is this: our defense should not always be a formal, "traditional" war. We must be able to defend ourselves individually through the freedoms granted by God and stated in the Second Ammendment.
|
Re: Reluctant Warriors: Christianity and the Just War Tradition
| Posted On: 09/05/05 02:54:15 AM |
Age 34, WA |
EDITED FOR TYPOS
I must respectfully disagree with much of the logic and scriptural interpretation used in this
article. A "tradition" of just war is no more valid an argument than a tradition of venerating
Mary. Using a "Christian worldview", lets look again at those 8 tests:
1. Just Cause? So what? Vengeance is the Lord's. God has given governments authority just as he
gave Cain the right to pay back evil with evil, but Christians should have no part of it.
2. Just Intent- We mean well? How is this a standard for ignoring many many scriptures on how God
would have us deal with our enemies.
3. Last Resort- This has no logical or quantifiable determination. Isn't the last resort (and
first) to put out fate in the hands of a Holy God? Again this is for Christians - what a secular
govt does is not relevant.
4. Formal Declaration of War- A Christian can pursue violence if he announces it first? Simply
has no scriptural basis.
5. Limited Objectives- Jesus tells us that if we call our brother a fool, we are like a murderer.
I don't think God cares any more for our "light" or limited wars than he does a good messy one.
6. Proportionate Means- I guess this is saying that if we are going to have a war, make sure some
of us die too. There is no biblical basis for that, but it's irrelevant anyway, as Christians
shouldn't be trying to kill people at all.
7. Noncombatant Immunity- All war kills civilians. they are messy. Yet, I suspect God's true ways
don't involve collateral damage.
8. Reasonable Hope for Success- This is ANYTHING BUT a Christian worldview. It's akin to saying
the ends justify the means, and there can be few more humanistic declarations than that. God is
solely concerned with our means - That we love our enemies, that we bless those that persecute us,
that we go the extra mile. If ultimately we die because of it, so beit, but Christ is clear how we
are to act to mankind. No earthly govt has the right to supplant Our King's clear directives.
At the end of WWII, the war crimes tribunals would not accept the excuse "just following orders"
given by German officers and enlisted men involved in genocide and mass murder. Why then do we
think Jesus will accept our excuse that our earthly presidents and prime ministers gave us the
order to kill our enemies. I humbly submit that a true Biblical Worldview is one that recognizes
that Jesus is victorious and is reigning now having established his spiritual kingdom within his
Church. As soldiers in his Kingdom we fight with spiritual weapons, not those of the world. If our
earthly country directs us to do something contrary to our primary citizenship - God's kingdom, we
must decline. If we think fighting our fellow man is somehow accomplishing Christ's work, we
understand nothing of His Gospel.
Or to put it simply: we aren't loving our enemy if we are shooting his brains out.
|
Re: Reluctant Warriors: Christianity and the Just War Tradition
| Posted On: 09/05/05 02:46:01 AM |
Age 34, WA |
I must respectfully disagree with much of the logic and scriptural interpretation used in this article. A "tradition" of just war is no more valid an argument than a tradition of venerating Mary. Using a "Christian worldview", lets look again at those 8 tests:
1. Just Cause? So what? Vengeance is the Lord's. God has given governments authority just as he gave Cain the right to pay back evil with evil, but Christians should have no part of it.
2. Just Intent- The objective of a defensive war must always be the restoration of peace and the defense of innocent human life.
3. Last Resort- This has no logical or quantifiable determination. Isn't the last resort (and first) to put out fate in the hands of a Holy God? Again this is for Christians - what a secular govt does is not relevant.
4. Formal Declaration of War- A Christian can pursue violence if he announces it first? Simply has no scriptural basis.
5. Limited Objectives- Jesus tells us that if we call our brother a fool, we are like a murderer. I don't think God cares any more for our "light" or limited wars than he does a good messy one.
6. Proportionate Means- I guess this is saying that if we are going to have a war, make sure some of us die too. There is no biblical basis for that, but it's irrelevant anyway, as Christians shouldn't be trying to kill people at all.
7. Noncombatant Immunity- All war kills civilians. they are messy. Yet, I suspect God's true ways don't involve colateral damage.
8. Reasonable Hope for Success- This is ANYTHING BUT a Christian worldview. It's akin to saying the ends justify the means, and there can be few more humanistic declarations than that. God is solely concerned with our means - That we love our enemies, that we bless those that persecute us, that we go the extra mile. If ultimately we die because of it, so beit, but Christ is clear how we are to act to manking. No earthly govt has the right to supplant Our King's clear directives.
At the end of WWII, the war crimes tribunals would not accept the excuse "just following orders" given by German officers and enlisted men involved in genocide and mass murder. Why then do we think Jesus will accept our excuse that our earthly presidents and prime ministers gave us the order to kill our enemies. I humbly submit that a true Biblical Worldview is one that recognizes that Jesus is victorious and is reigning now having established his spiritual kingdom within his Church. As soldiers in his Kingdom we fight with spiritual weapons, not those of the world. If our earthly country directs us to do something contrary to our primary citizenship - God's kingdom, we must decline. If we think fighting our fellow man is somehow accomplishing Christ's work, we understand nothing of his Gospel.
Or to put it simply: we aren't loving our enemy if we are shooting his brains out.
|
Re: Re: Reluctant Warriors: Christianity and the Just War Tradition
| Posted On: 08/31/05 09:12:43 PM |
Age 45, NC |
I think you are confused that Jesus was a pacifist. If He was He would not have gone into the temple with a whip and driven out the thieves BY FORCE. An action completely justified and accepted by The Father. Jesus also told us to confront those who have sinned against us and allow them to ask for our forgiveness. Of course, He did admonish us to forgive them whether they asked or not. But confrontation is hardly pacifistic. And you also might want to read the Book of Revelation - WAR will be waged in the last days. You also need to understand that we are currently fighting a war - a spiritual battle. If war was not allowed by God when the war is just why would He have us fighting the battle and why would there be war in the last days?
|
Re: Reluctant Warriors: Christianity and the Just War Tradition
| Posted On: 08/31/05 09:06:09 PM |
Age 45, NC |
I have never been a reluctant warrior but since being saved have found it difficult to articulate why I believe in capital punishment and why I believe the war in Iraq is a just war. This article explains it very well. Thank you also for reminding me that the sixth commandment does NOT state "Thou shall not KILL".
|
Re: Re: Reluctant Warriors: Christianity and the Just War Tradition
| Posted On: 08/31/05 02:01:45 PM |
Age 59, SD |
I just read your article on war. One of the difficult pursuits is to see how God works in the affairs
of men to accomplish His will. We see the tragedy of the tsunami. But as a result it opened doors
beyond our imagination for spreading the gospel in India. Our congregation participates in one
small effort of the Churches of Christ. We have focused upon the Dalits, which are essentially
non-existent in the view of the Indian populous including the government. That is how low the
Dalits (untouchables) are seen in that horrendous caste system. Yet in our small work we have
fed several hundred thousand, focusing upon widows and orphans, equipping widows to support
themselves. Nineteen new congregations have been started as well as four new preachers
schools. God opened the door through tragedy. We have had similar response in Albania and
Kosovo amongst the Muslim community as a result of the door God opened via the war in
Kosovo. In these two examples, we see tragedy as the avenue by which we were able to reach the
lost. One was a natural catastrophe, the other a war.
As is evidenced by reading the OT books of history and the pre-exilic prophets we see that
God not only participated in war, He sponsored it as His means of judgment against a nation. In
contrast to individuals, nations are not judged in or for eternity, but in this life. In fact no war
occurs without the consent of God. If so God would be unjust. He has His purpose in mind,
which we often can not see at the moment or perhaps years, decades or centuries to come. To say
that government is left to its own devices in war is a deist position. This aspect was not given in
your article.
Further, because of sinfulness of men, government often if not usually follow the ordained
purpose of government (Rom. 13). For example, the OT prophet Amos focuses upon the
inhumanity of the nations as the reason God would punish them. Specifically, Amos addressed
corrupt courts, unfair treatment of the poor, treatment of POWs, etc. Israel and Judah were
incurred Gods wrath because of violation of the covenant, including idolatry. The pagan nations
in Amos 1-2 were judged because of their inhuman treatment
The Just War premise is of course one that has a humane aspect to it, but we must remember
it is made by men. Was WWII a just war? from whose perspective Germanys? Russias?
Britains. USs? Which was the agent of Gods wrath, His judgment? Was it just one or two or
all? God used Assyria, considered to be the most cruel nation of its day to take the Northern
kingdom into captivity. The prophesied execution of Assyrias warfare reveal their inhumanity.
Yet the were Gods agent of justice. Did God use atheistic Russia to punish Nazi Germany and
vice versa? Both suffered tremendous losses and Russia spent another 50 years under
government sponsored atheism. Was it Gods will that the nation suffer under atheism?
Obviously God wants all men to be saved, but the atheism that prevailed was a result of rebellion
against God. Even by God ordained government, working contrary to Gods will. And it suffers
from the values engendered by it to this day. Would God allow such a government to prosecute a
war to punish another nation? We have already seen that in the case of Assyria. Would God
allow the atheist nation to prosecute a unjust war against another nation? No! That would be
contrary to His sense of justice, since He is the one who ordained government for that purpose
(as well as maintaining order in society in this sinful world).
Indeed it is most difficult to understand Gods ways. Why? For My thoughts are not your
thoughts, Nor are your ways My ways," says the Lord ( Isaiah 55:8).
We wish you Gods blessings in the effort to give people the Biblical worldview.
Jim Mettenbrink
Brookings SD
|
Re: Reluctant Warriors: Christianity and the Just War Tradition
| Posted On: 08/31/05 12:39:31 PM |
Age 50+, CA |
Very well articulated article, with sane, biblical background and reason for "justified warfare". I expected you to mention the Crusades which were basically fought for the same reason - to overcome the attempts of the Muslims to reign as world rulers. Even going through Catholic Schools, I never realized the real reason for the Crusades until recently when I read "The Politically Correct Guide to Islam" and a few other books and articles. They are opening my eyes to the fact that this war is, in fact, well justified. And those who are demonstrating in protest are, in fact, playing right into the hands of the secular left and the Muslim aims.
Even the ACLU has gradually numbed Americans into submission - taking away our Constitutionally guaranteed right to "express our religious beliefs". And Americans lie down and take it.
If we don't wake up soon - it may be too late. Check out www.stoptheaclu.org - there are ways to fight back and to retake those Civil and Religious Rights which have been stripped away from us.
Thank you for an enlightening article!
|
Re: Reluctant Warriors: Christianity and the Just War Tradition
| Posted On: 08/31/05 12:22:10 PM |
Age 29, WI |
Thanks for your interesting and balanced presentation on the biblical justification for war. While I agree that the bible does hold a place for human governments to go to war (within the purview of the Romans 12 passage), I question whether or not christians themselves should participate in the act of war. During the old testament God himself led his people into battle. Now we have no such absolute assertion that a war decided upon by human agents is "right" or "good." Even the Just War Theory has it's holes...
I would remind the readers that there is also christian tradition that supports pacificism - seen in at it's most extreme in groups like the amish. This position, I think, is also biblically tenable.
Thanks,
Dan.
|
Re: Reluctant Warriors: Christianity and the Just War Tradition
| Posted On: 08/31/05 07:02:13 AM |
Age 70, OH |
You us the same texts from the OT that the Jews usd to jistfy their terrorism of the neighboring states.
You have ignored completely and deliberately the teachings of Jesus the Christ who has a completely pacicfist view of a Christians participation in violence. The primitive church would not participate in military or any other violence until Constantine made Chrisianity the state religion and used it for his political purposes.
Why are you ignoring Jesus' words, don't you believe in him?
|
|
|
|
|
