• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

  • CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.

Is there ever ethical justification for conquest of a nation?

Carl Emerson

Well-Known Member
Dec 18, 2017
15,759
10,502
79
Auckland
✟448,064.00
Country
New Zealand
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I have noticed growing opposition to Biblical world views.

One area of concern is to dismiss the Biblical claim that conquest of a nation can be divinely mandated.

This is strong among proponents of indigenous rights.

I suspect this is part of the philosophy of the UN.

Have others noticed this ?

Sadly many conquests are downright evil, yet there seems strong biblical record of justified conquest.

Comments on this greatly appreciated.
 

PloverWing

Episcopalian
May 5, 2012
5,295
6,324
New Jersey
✟414,066.00
Country
United States
Gender
Female
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Joshua and Judges are among the most troubling books in the Bible, because they seem to assert that God ordered the invasion and conquest of a region. This conflicts with the values of loving one's enemies and loving one's neighbor as one's self. Honestly, I don't know what to do with this conflict; for now, I'm just letting the two opposing themes sit side by side, and maybe I'll find wisdom later.

As to applying this to modern times: I might provisionally be willing to allow that once in a while, on rare occasions, God endorses a military conquest. Maybe it happened that once, with ancient Israel. But I would not claim divine endorsement for anything that modern nations do. At best, warfare is a least among evils -- doing evil to stop evil, because we felt that we needed to stop the evil and we couldn't find a better way to do that.

It's tempting to think "My country is the best country, so I'm sure God is on my side, so I'm sure God wants me to conquer these people." My own country, the US, is really good at this rationalization. It's a temptation that should be resisted.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: Carl Emerson
Upvote 0

2PhiloVoid

Mary Shelley, you were right !!
Site Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
25,100
11,808
Space Mountain!
✟1,393,091.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
I have noticed growing opposition to Biblical world views.

One area of concern is to dismiss the Biblical claim that conquest of a nation can be divinely mandated.

This is strong among proponents of indigenous rights.

I suspect this is part of the philosophy of the UN.

Have others noticed this ?

Sadly many conquests are downright evil, yet there seems strong biblical record of justified conquest.

Comments on this greatly appreciated.

Yes, I have noticed this hermeneutical failure among an ever growing number of people. And usually, this false appraisal comes about all to easily because most people don't take the time to read the biblical texts fully and contextually, nor to challenge their own assumptions about the modern political world ..................................................................................................... all the while hanging onto modern predispositions for unproven political presuppositions.
 
Upvote 0

2PhiloVoid

Mary Shelley, you were right !!
Site Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
25,100
11,808
Space Mountain!
✟1,393,091.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Joshua and Judges are among the most troubling books in the Bible, because they seem to assert that God ordered the invasion and conquest of a region. This conflicts with the values of loving one's enemies and loving one's neighbor as one's self. Honestly, I don't know what to do with this conflict; for now, I'm just letting the two opposing themes sit side by side, and maybe I'll find wisdom later.

As to applying this to modern times: I might provisionally be willing to allow that once in a while, on rare occasions, God endorses a military conquest. Maybe it happened that once, with ancient Israel. But I would not claim divine endorsement for anything that modern nations do. At best, warfare is a least among evils -- doing evil to stop evil, because we felt that we needed to stop the evil and we couldn't find a better way to do that.

It's tempting to think "My country is the best country, so I'm sure God is on my side, so I'm sure God wants me to conquer these people." My own country, the US, is really good at this rationalization. It's a temptation that should be resisted.

I don't see a conceptual conflict. It only becomes a conflict if we hold certain modern ethical presuppositions and/or frameworks as abstractly axiomatic and without the need for scrutinizing and studying further scholarly contexts ...

The big problem that I see today has to do with the very, very limited and hyper-spastic way that folks read the bible-------i.e. in bits and pieces. And then they try to make a comprehensive moral evaluation about it all. Some of this, as it has been with the New Atheists, is a kind of knee-jerk reaction to "all-things-religious" after the events of 9/11 took place.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

2PhiloVoid

Mary Shelley, you were right !!
Site Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
25,100
11,808
Space Mountain!
✟1,393,091.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Joshua and Judges are among the most troubling books in the Bible, because they seem to assert that God ordered the invasion and conquest of a region. This conflicts with the values of loving one's enemies and loving one's neighbor as one's self. Honestly, I don't know what to do with this conflict; for now, I'm just letting the two opposing themes sit side by side, and maybe I'll find wisdom later.

As to applying this to modern times: I might provisionally be willing to allow that once in a while, on rare occasions, God endorses a military conquest. Maybe it happened that once, with ancient Israel. But I would not claim divine endorsement for anything that modern nations do. At best, warfare is a least among evils -- doing evil to stop evil, because we felt that we needed to stop the evil and we couldn't find a better way to do that.

It's tempting to think "My country is the best country, so I'm sure God is on my side, so I'm sure God wants me to conquer these people." My own country, the US, is really good at this rationalization. It's a temptation that should be resisted.

And you're right, too, to say that in the US, we've made a virtual sacred cow out out idea of 'divine rights.' Those on the right who lean toward Dominionist ideology tend to think that "because" the Israelites made conquests, this means we are sanctioned to do likewise. Of course, this idea is nothing new and not particularly peculiar to the US. We just have political blocks on the right that like to push this political canard, and they do so because they make similar mistakes in hermeneutics that liberal, left leaning Skeptics do when reading and then chop blocking the Bible.
 
Upvote 0

NBB

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Apr 19, 2013
4,052
1,941
46
Uruguay
✟667,049.00
Country
Uruguay
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
In a ideal world conquest wouldn't exist, because you need to kill and steal to conquer, so thats against christianity.

I think this bible passage applies here

"What causes fights and quarrels among you? Don’t they come from your desires that battle within you? 2 You desire but do not have, so you kill. You covet but you cannot get what you want, so you quarrel and fight."
 
Upvote 0

2PhiloVoid

Mary Shelley, you were right !!
Site Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
25,100
11,808
Space Mountain!
✟1,393,091.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
I have noticed growing opposition to Biblical world views.

One area of concern is to dismiss the Biblical claim that conquest of a nation can be divinely mandated.

This is strong among proponents of indigenous rights.

I suspect this is part of the philosophy of the UN.

Have others noticed this ?

Sadly many conquests are downright evil, yet there seems strong biblical record of justified conquest.

Comments on this greatly appreciated.

I would suggest that it is crucial to discern the how and why any sort of conquest was mandated by God in the bible. Without this contextual understanding we end up making a wax-nose out of the concept to be either used or dismissed according to one's modern whims.
 
  • Like
Reactions: zippy2006
Upvote 0

anetazo

Well-Known Member
Feb 19, 2023
522
123
53
Meriden
✟27,501.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian Seeker
Marital Status
Single
Satan starts wars. In old testament. God instructs moses and Israel to seek peaceful diplomacy. Only go to war if neccessary.
Moses did this in deuteronomy. To seek permission to cross their land. These heathen people made war on Israel.
God delivered the heathen into Israel hands.
In first kings. Joab pursued a scoundrel who insulted king David. Wise woman of the city talked sense to joab. Israel can't just annihilate a city. Peace terms must first be administered.
Thiers rules of engagement. There are rules of war. Get the picture.
Nazi Germany was satanic. God was removed. Heathism and socialism took over. Satan is the one who starts wars.

I hope this helps. In your service. God's election, Zadok.
 
Upvote 0

Carl Emerson

Well-Known Member
Dec 18, 2017
15,759
10,502
79
Auckland
✟448,064.00
Country
New Zealand
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Satan starts wars. In old testament. God instructs moses and Israel to seek peaceful diplomacy. Only go to war if neccessary.
Moses did this in deuteronomy. To seek permission to cross their land. These heathen people made war on Israel.
God delivered the heathen into Israel hands.
In first kings. Joab pursued a scoundrel who insulted king David. Wise woman of the city talked sense to joab. Israel can't just annihilate a city. Peace terms must first be administered.
Thiers rules of engagement. There are rules of war. Get the picture.
Nazi Germany was satanic. God was removed. Heathism and socialism took over. Satan is the one who starts wars.

I hope this helps. In your service. God's election, Zadok.

Joshua 11​


20 For it was the LORD himself who hardened their hearts to wage war against Israel, so that he might destroy them totally, exterminating them without mercy, as the LORD had commanded Moses.
21 At that time Joshua went and destroyed the Anakites from the hill country: from Hebron, Debir and Anab, from all the hill country of Judah, and from all the hill country of Israel. Joshua totally destroyed them and their towns.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Bob Crowley

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Dec 27, 2015
3,953
2,482
71
Logan City
✟987,862.00
Country
Australia
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
The Catholic Church addresses this issue in the "Just War Doctrine" as set out the Catechism.



  • The classic formulation of the Just War doctrine is set out in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, No. 2309:
    1. (2309) The strict conditions for legitimate defense by military force require rigorous consideration. The gravity of such a decision makes it subject to rigorous conditions of moral legitimacy. At one and the same time:
      • The damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;
      • All other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;
      • There must be serious prospects of success;
      • The use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. the power of modem means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.

        These are the traditional elements enumerated in what is called the “just war” doctrine. The evaluation of these conditions for moral legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good.
World War II was a "just war", at least from the point of view of the allies.

But there have been other wars in recent times which have not been "just wars".

As for the invasion of the Canaanite nations by the Israelites in ancient times, I don't have any easy answer, but the moral practices of the Canaanites left a lot to be desired. It was judgement - not genocide.


Even by ancient standards, the Canaanites were a hideously nasty bunch. Their culture was grossly immoral, decadent to its roots. Its debauchery was dictated primarily by its fertility religion that tied eroticism of all varieties to the successful agrarian cycles of planting and harvest.

In addition to divination, witchcraft, and female and male temple sex, Canaanite idolatry encompassed a host of morally disgusting practices that mimicked the sexually perverse conduct of their Canaanite fertility gods: adultery, homosexuality, transvestitism, pederasty (men sexually abusing boys), sex with all sorts of beasts,10 and incest. Note that after the Canaanite city Sodom was destroyed, Lot’s daughters immediately seduced their drunken father, imitating one of the sexual practices of the city just annihilated (Gen. 19:30–36).

Worst of all, Canaanites practiced child sacrifice. There was a reason God had commanded, “Do not give any of your children to be sacrificed to Molech” (Lev. 18:21 NIV):

Molech was a Canaanite underworld deity represented as an upright, bull-headed idol with human body in whose belly a fire was stoked and in whose outstretched arms a child was placed that would be burned to death.... And it was not just infants; children as old as four were sacrificed.11
And:

A bronze image of Kronos was set up among them, stretching out its cupped hands above a bronze cauldron, which would burn the child. As the flame burning the child surrounded the body, the limbs would shrivel up and the mouth would appear to grin as if laughing, until it was shrunk enough to slip into the cauldron.12
Archaeological evidence indicates that the children thus burned to death sometimes numbered in the thousands.13

The Canaanites had been reveling in debasements like these for centuries as God patiently postponed judgment (Gen 15.16). Here was no “petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty, ethnic cleanser” (to use Dawkins’s words). Instead, here was a God willing to spare the Canaanite city of Sodom for the sake of just ten righteous people (Gen. 18:32), a God who was slow to anger and always fast to forgive (note Nineveh, for example).

But is there not a limit? Indeed, what would we say of a God who perpetually sat silent in the face of such wickedness? Would we not ask, Where was God? Would we not question His goodness, His power, or even His existence if He did not eventually vanquish this evil? Yet when God finally does act, we are quick to find fault with the “vindictive, bloodthirsty, ethnic cleanser.”

The conquest was neither ethnic cleansing nor genocide. God cared nothing about skin color or national origin. Aliens shared the same legal rights in the commonwealth as Jews (Lev. 19:34, Lev. 24:22, Deut. 10:18–19). Foreigners like Naomi and Rahab were welcome within their ranks.

God cared only about sin. The conquest was an exercise of capital punishment on a national scale, payback for hundreds of years of idolatry and unthinkable debauchery.14 Indeed, God brought the same sentence of destruction on His own people when they sinned in like manner.
 
Upvote 0

Stephen3141

Well-Known Member
Mar 14, 2023
1,425
552
69
Southwest
✟100,195.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Private
You need to define what you mean by a "nation".

In many times past, in history, some ethnic cultures would not have been considered to be "nations".
If you accept that God is sovereign, and the judge of the living and the dead, then you have to accept
that God could command the conquest of a nation.

In the Bible, you have God using the Hittites and Babylonians, to conquer most of the land of Israel,
and carry away his people as captives (because of their evil behavior).

There have been wars, in which waging war against an enemy has been justified by arguments that
the enemy has committed such horrendous atrocities. This was the case with the Third Reich,
in World War II.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Carl Emerson
Upvote 0