Is Just War ever acceptable?

[HighwayMan]

I read a very interesting essay whose conclusions I strongly disagree with by humanitarian aid group Doctors Without Borders, essentially going against the "just war" idea: Not In Our Name: Why MSF Does Not Support the "Responsibility to Protect"

To summarize, they contest that in almost no case is it ever acceptable to send military aid for people whose lives are in danger at the hands of terrorists/hostile forces.

The article breaks down many of the complexities, and points out how there is often corruption and ill intent in countries sending military aid; how often times it only makes the regional conflict worse; how it does not improve the situation in the long-term - all fine points, but in my view they speak from a humanistic perspective, one that believes that mankind can eventually fix itself.

Would Christians agree that Jesus Christ would approve of "just war," in the proper context? Is it not mankind's responsibility to act and help defend victims from their oppressors in the here and now? With all due respect to MSF and all the work they do, suggesting that people stand on the side and only help with relief (which is important, but by no means sufficient) rather than go and fight to save people? Jesus said turn the other cheek, but not stand by giving aid packets as children, women and men are slaughtered at your feet.

Would you not shoot down an attacker who is literally about to rape and kill a family? Or an army of such attackers? Look at what's happening to all the Christians in the Middle East, and other minorities. How do we not raise up arms to save them?

Nothing will solve the complexities of this world. The world will never achieve perfect peace and harmony. Only God can do that in his heavenly realm. What matters is what we do when we are called upon to act. Will we defend these people by all means necessary, or allow for them to be massacred in fear that any action will only make matters worse?

Again, while I respect some of MSF's programs and work, it seems that they are ignoring the very immediate and unavoidable necessity of military aid. When people's lives are on the line, those with the means to help must do so.

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing, it has been said.

 

[Bluerose31]

I read a very interesting essay whose conclusions I strongly disagree with by humanitarian aid group Doctors Without Borders, essentially going against the "just war" idea: Not In Our Name: Why MSF Does Not Support the "Responsibility to Protect"

To summarize, they contest that in almost no case is it ever acceptable to send military aid for people whose lives are in danger at the hands of terrorists/hostile forces.

The article breaks down many of the complexities, and points out how there is often corruption and ill intent in countries sending military aid; how often times it only makes the regional conflict worse; how it does not improve the situation in the long-term - all fine points, but in my view they speak from a humanistic perspective, one that believes that mankind can eventually fix itself.

Would Christians agree that Jesus Christ would approve of "just war," in the proper context? Is it not mankind's responsibility to act and help defend victims from their oppressors in the here and now? With all due respect to MSF and all the work they do, suggesting that people stand on the side and only help with relief (which is important, but by no means sufficient) rather than go and fight to save people? Jesus said turn the other cheek, but not stand by giving aid packets as children, women and men are slaughtered at your feet.

Would you not shoot down an attacker who is literally about to rape and kill a family? Or an army of such attackers? Look at what's happening to all the Christians in the Middle East, and other minorities. How do we not raise up arms to save them?

Nothing will solve the complexities of this world. The world will never achieve perfect peace and harmony. Only God can do that in his heavenly realm. What matters is what we do when we are called upon to act. Will we defend these people by all means necessary, or allow for them to be massacred in fear that any action will only make matters worse?

Again, while I respect some of MSF's programs and work, it seems that they are ignoring the very immediate and unavoidable necessity of military aid. When people's lives are on the line, those with the means to help must do so.

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing, it has been said.

I wish there never needed to be war. I pray one day there will be no more war.

 

[friend of]

Just war > Unjust peace

but there's no point in war now because nothing humanity can do will ever regenerate this world from its fallen state. entering the darkest hour mankind will ever face

 

[thecolorsblend]

I believe in the abstract idea of a just war. But considering how destructive and powerful modern weapons are, I don't see how it's technologically possible anymore.

The fact is that most wars can be avoided. Avoiding them might mean making hard decisions that voters won't like... but if the only alternative is another pointless war that kills our soldiers and their civilians while benefiting only a small bunch of rootless cosmopolitans, I say the hard decisions are better than going to war.

 

[HighwayMan]

Just war > Unjust peace

but there's no point in war now because nothing humanity can do will ever regenerate this world from its fallen state. entering the darkest hour mankind will ever face

Yes, "peace" does not mean the absence of war. That's what the U.N. and other organizations don't understand. No one wants war, but sometimes it is necessary to send military help, even if the outcome is uncertain, even if there is no clear path toward long-term conflict resolution.

 

[football5680]

A just war is acceptable but I do not really trust the intent of any countries today.

 

[SteveIndy]

Would Christians agree that Jesus Christ would approve of "just war," in the proper context?

You ask the question if Jesus would approve of "Just War"? The answer is no, He would not. If the life of Jesus is our example then there is no approval at all. Neither is there approval from His Apostles, or for that matter, from Christendom for the better part of three hundred years. Then we come to Augustine, who arbitrarily, for political purposes, institutes Just War. Politics has nothing to do with Christ or Christianity, politics are of this world and represent the affirmation of man's independence from God, his revolt against God, and his pretentious attempt to play God.

 

[thecolorsblend]

You ask the question if Jesus would approve of "Just War"? The answer is no, He would not. If the life of Jesus is our example then there is no approval at all. Neither is there approval from His Apostles, or for that matter, from Christendom for the better part of three hundred years. Then we come to Augustine, who arbitrarily, for political purposes, institutes Just War. Politics has nothing to do with Christ or Christianity, politics are of this world and represent the affirmation of man's independence from God, his revolt against God, and his pretentious attempt to play God.

You're comparing two dissimilar things there. Our Lord, the apostles and the Early Church had little or no real political power. Therefore they never had to make those decisions.

Comparing those circumstances to times when Christianity had become so widespread that many places were all or mostly Christian is a little inappropriate.

 

[SteveIndy]

You're comparing two dissimilar things there. Our Lord, the apostles and the Early Church had little or no real political power. Therefore they never had to make those decisions.

Comparing those circumstances to times when Christianity had become so widespread that many places were all or mostly Christian is a little inappropriate.

The question was asked if Jesus would approve of Just War, and the answer is still NO He would not. Comparing past Christian thought with present Christian thought are not two different things. The only thing that is different is man, and how men think and handle truth. Augutine took "truth" and perverted it for political ends. Constantine needed warm bodies to fight his battles and Christian belief since the time of Christ was non-resistance, so Constantine being the politically savvy person that he was all of a sudden finds Jesus, incorporates the Cross into his military banner and declares Jesus as the forward element in all of his wars. But, he still had to get all those Christians to pick up swords, and in steps Augustine with his solution of Just War. The teaching of Christ and the Apostles has not changed, only men have changed. Christians do not trust God today, they trust the sword, the police, guns, alarm systems, the military, courts, etc.

 

[thecolorsblend]

I see no real indication that Our Lord is morally opposed to war full-stop. My guess is He doesn't think it's ideal... but if the alternative is, oh I dunno, a horde of fanatical Moslems invading your country, raping your women and subjugating your children, He might not mind armed resistance.

 

[SteveIndy]

Well, my friend you are in the majority, but that does not mean you are correct, it only means that the majority has believed a lie. Jesus said in no uncertain terms, "You have heard it said 'an eye for an eye' BUT I SAY resist not an evil person." Many have danced around these words to justify their lust for revenge and self-defense but the words stand as quoted. Thou shalt not kill still means just that, and Jesus even takes it further by denying even evil thoughts against another person and equated it with murder.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

A just war can be the best of two bad options. We should not have remained pacifist in the face of Hitler and we certainty shouldn't remain pacifist in front of today's evil regimes. The motivations of certain countries does not justify complete and total pacifism.

 

[SteveIndy]

A just war can be the best of two bad options. We should not have remained pacifist in the face of Hitler and we certainty shouldn't remain pacifist in front of today's evil regimes. The motivations of certain countries does not justify complete and total pacifism.

By all means, if you are of this world then fight, but we are speaking of Christians who are citizens of another kingdom then we are to follow our Lord.

 

[HighwayMan]

By all means, if you are of this world then fight, but we are speaking of Christians who are citizens of another kingdom then we are to follow our Lord.

And what do the Christians do then, when women and children are literally being raped and butchered at their feet? Do they stand there and plead with the attackers to stop (which hardly ever works), or do they pick up a sword to protect them?

 

[SteveIndy]

And what do the Christians do then, when women and children are literally being raped and butchered at their feet? Do they stand there and plead with the attackers to stop (which hardly ever works), or do they pick up a sword to protect them?

Your way is the way of the flesh and not of the spirit. Have you ever wondered why the path is so narrow and the gate strait? It is because following Jesus is difficult. It is easy to let the flesh dictate our actions.

 

[HighwayMan]

Your way is the way of the flesh and not of the spirit. Have you ever wondered why the path is so narrow and the gate strait? It is because following Jesus is difficult. It is easy to let the flesh dictate our actions.

That is not an answer to the question. I assume you mean that you would not fight for them, you would stand aside, and then say that you are simply "following the spirit?"

I strongly disagree that it's the "flesh" dictating your actions to protect innocent victims. Especially if you say this from the comforts of safety, and aren't there on the ground seeing the people being killed face to face.

I definitely do not interpret Jesus' path as a commandment for all Christians to just bow their heads and be wiped out from the face of the earth. In some regions, such as the Middle East, that is what's happening.

 

[ViaCrucis]

A just war is never a good war. There is no such thing as a good war. Another poster here said that, in theory, one can subscribe to the idea of a just war (and I think I mostly agree); but just war theory arose during a time when when battles were fought by people with swords and pointy sticks; the weapons of war have changed, and the immensity of destruction that can be accomplished renders the idea of a just war almost, if not entirely, impossible. Can war ever be just? In theory, yes; in practice, almost never, and probably never as long as we have the technology to obliterate virtually the entire population of the planet.

The reason why I think we can still speak of just war at all is because of a bit of 20th century history--the rise of Hitler to power, and the evils of the Nazi regime demanded a response from the nations of the world. The cost of not stopping Hitler was far, far greater than the cost of stopping him--though horrendously and awfully bloody it was. That, however, is a case most extraordinary, an evil which the world had never seen before or since.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[SteveIndy]

That is not an answer to the question. I assume you mean that you would not fight for them, you would stand aside, and then say that you are simply "following the spirit?"

I strongly disagree that it's the "flesh" dictating your actions to protect innocent victims. Especially if you say this from the comforts of safety, and aren't there on the ground seeing the people being killed face to face.

I definitely do not interpret Jesus' path as a commandment for all Christians to just bow their heads and be wiped out from the face of the earth. In some regions, such as the Middle East, that is what's happening.

The mind of man, of the flesh, can not understand the things of the spirit. What appears to be reasonable in the situation you speak of, that is, to protect one self and the innocent by violence, is not God's way. God gives us commands and expects us to follow those commands, it is that simple. If we do not then we will reap the benefits of our so called Christianity. We have an example from the O.T. story of Naaman the Syrian who was a leper. Naaman, a great man of valor, took the letter of his king to the king of Israel and required that he cleanse Naaman by the hand of the prophet Elisha. Of course, Naaman, being a man who demanded recognition and honor due to his status, i.e. he expected the obvious, the reasonable, what anyone in his position would expect, approached the situation as a man of the flesh. What he totally did not expect was the answer he received from Elisha. Elisha, a type of Christ, did not give Naaman the respect he expected. Elisha did not even go out to meet Naaman but only sent a message that Naaman was to go to the Jordan and wash (7) times. Well, this was totally absurd and stupid to the mind of Naaman who reasoned that there were many better rivers than the Jordan and he would not be counted as some stupid fool when he knew better. It was only when his servant reasoned with him and appealed to his flesh that Naaman consented and was cleansed. The Bible repeatedly warns us not to trust our own ability to reason out the situation but to trust the One who has said follow Me. He has left us with good proof of His ability to do what He has promised. It is us who refuse to trust Him and always resort to our own powers of reason. We have also been shown that when we take the route of own abilities we will fail to reach our goal.

 

[HighwayMan]

The mind of man, of the flesh, can not understand the things of the spirit. What appears to be reasonable in the situation you speak of, that is, to protect one self and the innocent by violence, is not God's way. God gives us commands and expects us to follow those commands, it is that simple. If we do not then we will reap the benefits of our so called Christianity. We have an example from the O.T. story of Naaman the Syrian who was a leper. Naaman, a great man of valor, took the letter of his king to the king of Israel and required that he cleanse Naaman by the hand of the prophet Elisha. Of course, Naaman, being a man who demanded recognition and honor due to his status, i.e. he expected the obvious, the reasonable, what anyone in his position would expect, approached the situation as a man of the flesh. What he totally did not expect was the answer he received from Elisha. Elisha, a type of Christ, did not give Naaman the respect he expected. Elisha did not even go out to meet Naaman but only sent a message that Naaman was to go to the Jordan and wash (7) times. Well, this was totally absurd and stupid to the mind of Naaman who reasoned that there were many better rivers than the Jordan and he would not be counted as some stupid fool when he knew better. It was only when his servant reasoned with him and appealed to his flesh that Naaman consented and was cleansed. The Bible repeatedly warns us not to trust our own ability to reason out the situation but to trust the One who has said follow Me. He has left us with good proof of His ability to do what He has promised. It is us who refuse to trust Him and always resort to our own powers of reason. We have also been shown that when we take the route of own abilities we will fail to reach our goal.

This again is an incredibly long post that does nothing in answering the question. I am not asking "explain your spiritual reasoning," I am saying tell me first what you will do in that situation.

You are forcing me to try and figure out what you are trying to say instead of you yourself actually saying it, and so to the best of what I can surmise, you are saying no, you will not physically fight to help the victims. Nor would you approve of others fighting and trying to save them.

I mean no disrespect, but I can not imagine a version of Christianity I disagree with more. Again, it is remarkably easy to preach and portray yourself as holy from the comforts of the Western world, when you don't have to face the actual screams and blood and please of help of the hundreds of thousands that are being slaughtered right now.

And the O.T. btw is filled to the brim of God-sanctioned wars against enemies that are trying to persecute and eliminate the people.

You can look at history too. A good bit of Eastern Europe, where I am from, exists today because Christian populations chose war and struggle for freedom and liberty in the face of the most severe Islamic extremism the world has ever seen. If we had not chosen war, The Ottoman Empire, a.k.a Turkey, would control at least half of Europe today. Is that what Jesus would have preferred? And then look ahead at Nazi Germany - should America not have fought them?

 

[SteveIndy]

This again is an incredibly long post that does nothing in answering the question. I am not asking "explain your spiritual reasoning," I am saying tell me first what you will do in that situation.

You are forcing me to try and figure out what you are trying to say instead of you yourself actually saying it, and so to the best of what I can surmise, you are saying no, you will not physically fight to help the victims. Nor would you approve of others fighting and trying to save them.

I mean no disrespect, but I can not imagine a version of Christianity I disagree with more. Again, it is remarkably easy to preach and portray yourself as holy from the comforts of the Western world, when you don't have to face the actual screams and blood and please of help of the hundreds of thousands that are being slaughtered right now.

And the O.T. btw is filled to the brim of God-sanctioned wars against enemies that are trying to persecute and eliminate the people.

You can look at history too. A good bit of Eastern Europe, where I am from, exists today because Christian populations chose war and struggle for freedom and liberty in the face of the most severe Islamic extremism the world has ever seen. If we had not chosen war, The Ottoman Empire, a.k.a Turkey, would control at least half of Europe today. Is that what Jesus would have preferred? And then look ahead at Nazi Germany - should America not have fought them?

I thought we were talking about the Christian response to the question “Is Just War ever acceptable?” If you are referring to the world then anything they do is correct according to their Prince the Devil. But, if we are speaking of Christians, individually and not as a group, then my answer stands, Just War is not acceptable nor is the violent response against any enemy acceptable according to the N.T. It does not matter how I personally might respond, it only matters what the Bible says and the example of Christ, His Apostles, and how the primitive Church understood their teaching.

First, we must discount the O.T. as the final authority in this matter. The O.T. has been rewritten and only the N.T. can be used as evidence to settle the matter. Hebrews 8:7-8 “For if that first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no occasion to look for a second. For he finds fault with them when he says: “Behold, the days are coming, declares the Lord, when I will establish a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah.” Hebrews 9:15-17 “Therefore he is the mediator of a new covenant, so that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance, since a death has occurred that redeems them from the transgressions committed under the first covenant. For where a will is involved, the death of the one who made it must be established. For a will takes effect only at death, since it is not in force as long as the one who made it is alive.” John 16:16 “The Law and the Prophets were until John; since then the good news of the kingdom of God is preached.” Matthew 5:39 “You have heard it said an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth but I tell you do not resist an evil person.” There are other verses I could quote but I am afraid you are tired of reading, but it clear from the verse above that the O.T. cannot be used to prove “Just War.”

All of this does not say that I would remain still and allow an innocent person to be harmed. The correct response for a Christian is to try and prevent any harm to the victim but do no harm. As lambs and doves are pictures of the Christian we can only be non-violent. As far as approving of other fighting I can only direct them to teaching of Christ. Each of us will stand alone before the Great Judge. You are not disagreeing with me you are disagreeing with Scripture. I do not portray myself as holy I am only repeating what the Bible says. Doesn’t the Bible tell us to not lean on our own understanding? And if you try and use the O.T. in your defense before God you will not have a leg to stand on. Luke 9:56 “For the Son of Man didn't come to destroy men's lives, but to save them.”

What governments and nations do has no bearing on the subject, they are of this world, Christians are subjects of God and subject to Him only. All of government and the laws of men are the products of rebellion and independence from God and anyone who puts themselves under those governments will suffer the same consequences as that government. Christians have only One Master and King.