Are no wars justified?

[Dansiph]

could the non-Orthodox please debate each other elsewhere?

I thought the point was that we could get involved?

 

[~Anastasia~]

I thought the point was that we could get involved?

Yes, anyone can debate here.

The point is to debate Orthodoxy. I wasn't following how posts interacted with each other, so I'm not commenting on that. But sometimes we end up with several Protestants debating each other without interacting with the Orthodox, and that's what we try to head off.

 

[Dansiph]

Yes, anyone can debate here.

The point is to debate Orthodoxy. I wasn't following how posts interacted with each other, so I'm not commenting on that. But sometimes we end up with several Protestants debating each other without interacting with the Orthodox, and that's what we try to head off.

Ok, I understand. At first I didnt realise where I was posting because I clicked from the right hand side thing. I just wanted to post from Ecclesiastes mostly. I think the topic is very broad too so it's hard to not get involved. It's not exclusive to Orthodox is what I mean

 

[ArmyMatt]

Ok, I understand. At first I didnt realise where I was posting because I clicked from the right hand side thing. I just wanted to post from Ecclesiastes mostly. I think the topic is very broad too so it's hard to not get involved. It's not exclusive to Orthodox is what I mean

no, we want you to come here and debate us. that's the point of this section. please do stick around.

 

[~Anastasia~]

Ok, I understand. At first I didnt realise where I was posting because I clicked from the right hand side thing. I just wanted to post from Ecclesiastes mostly. I think the topic is very broad too so it's hard to not get involved. It's not exclusive to Orthodox is what I mean

Yes it's very natural for these conversations to develop. I don't think it was problematic at any rate. You are very free to post your opinions or arguments as they relate to the OP.

And it's true, most any topic does relate to everyone outside of Orthodoxy. That's why we sometimes get 30 posts in a row of non-Orthodox debating something that has nothing to do with us. Sometimes Catholics and Protestants disagreeing over something that has nothing to do with us. I think that's what we were trying to prevent.

Please do feel free to comment as the original topic relates to you.

 

[icxn]

These seem to indicate that there is a time for killing and a time for war

A time to kill the law of sin that lives in our flesh, and a time to enjoy the spiritual healing that comes from that.

A time to war against the demons and the passions they try to sow in us, and a time to enjoy the spiritual peace of God's protection.

That is how we understand those verses.

Quotes from St. Gregory of Nyssa:

Yet again the text which we had just considered concurs with what now follows: "There is a time to kill and a time to heal" [3.3]. The prophet correctly explains this verse and says in God's presence, "I kill and I make to live" [Dt 32.39]. Unless we kill the enemy in ourselves, love, which hatred has made ill, will not cure us. Thus every other evil--I mean the civil war within us resulting from pleasure which leads us captive to the [J.384] law of sin--has a time to be killed, for its death becomes healing for the person sick with sin. Physicians say that bad humors propagate worms and other parasites within our intestines and cause death; if medicine kills them, health is restored. These examples pertaining to the body may apply analogously to the sickness of the soul. Whenever anger exhausts you or injuries cut the soul's tautness and thoughts, or if you feel that your soul is nourishing a beast within, the time is right to apply a cure for their destruction. The Gospel teaches the same thing, namely, that killing brings life.
(...)
"There is a time for peace and a time for war" [3.8]. Observe the battle line of the conflicting passions, the law of the flesh drawn up against the law of your mind which makes it captive to the law of sin [Rom 7.23]. Observe the various implements of battle and see how vast is the array drawn up against your city. The enemy sends out scouts, dispatches traitors, lays snares by the road, sets ambushes and traps, summons allies, prepares war machines, slingers, archers, a band of soldiers for hand to hand combat, cavalry and the like. You are certainly familiar with the traitor, scout, those setting snares, slingers, spear throwers, archers, soldiers fighting in hand to hand combat, the cavalry and similar foes which shake the wall of our souls. The person who considers these things must arm himself, summon allies, see if there might be foes [J.430] among subjected peoples, watch out for snares by the road, protect himself against weapons from behind shields, ward off soldiers in close combat, dig a trench against horsemen, erect breastworks and protect our walls against assaults so that war machines may not shake them. There is no need to explain each point, that is, how the enemy of each city founded by God tries our strength by scouts and implants traitors in our midst.

Such is the first assault of temptation, the beginning of passion, which these words serve to clarify. Such is the one who spies on our strength and observes our assaults in order to stir up our desire. The enemy examines your strength [M.745] for seeing whether you are strong and ready or weak and lax. If his sight does not make you sink nor slacken your resolution and if you shake him off by remaining free from passion, you immediately frighten the spy by acting like a phalanx of arms bristling with spears, I mean your thoughts prepared [J.431] to confront the informant. If this sight weakens sense perception and an image enters the mind through our eyes, then the mind or commander of our inner resources will be subdued since he not only lacked fortitude or was youthful but was lazy and dissolute. As a result, many traitors from the crowd, that is, our thoughts, will be summoned to assist the spy...​

 

[ArmyMatt]

Fair enough

please forgive my abruptness, I only posted that to keep folks debating Orthodoxy. you are more than welcome to post and debate us here.

 

[Moses Medina]

My two cents:

As someone who has been in for 12 years of service. With 3 combat tours as a line medic (medic ingrained with a comoany that goes out on patrols) in a light infantry battalion, and 2 operational tours (Jordan and Poland), I want to warn others of the faith that it is very easy to get caught up in the toxic culture of the military mindset of aggressiveness (though it is needed) and debauchery. We are called to be good stewards of the faith by our actions while serving honorably. Its very possible to channel our passions of such things into what is God pleasing.

The vocation of a military member is important, and unfortunately we need armies. It is important to keep the faith, be diligent in the race, and carry our cross.

Something I have been very terrible at and I have to live with my decisions in my earlier life. Lord have mercy on your people.

 

[RDKirk]

As far as the Church's position on war - we can infer a few things.

There are soldier-Saints. However ... a person who has killed another person, even in war or in defense of the innocent, is still prescribed to abstain from the Eucharist for a period of time, because even when "necessary" - the taking of human life is an offense against the image of God in men and a serious sin.

It's not a simple answer. If God's order were being followed, there would be no reason for wars or killing. But because men are sinful, sometimes the "need" arises. Or at least the situation where it can be the more righteous thing to do. But it is still a serious and grievous thing to kill a person. One image of God destroying another image of God. The world is fallen and in deep sin.

I agree with the Orthodox position on this issue (as ArmyMatt and I have agreed several times before on this issue). And I come from a family that has been all military for over a hundred years, and I spent 26 years in uniform myself.

There is a great problem with assigning "righteousness" or "justness" to war (or any act of violence).

We are supposed to seek and pursue righteousness and justice, and to do what is righteous and just whenever possible.

If we declare that any violent act is "righteous" or "just," then we must seek and pursue such violent acts and commit them whenever possible.

But, no. We seek peace and avoid war not because the war is also righteous, but because war is not righteous. It might be necessary in this fallen world, but it is not righteous.

"It was not that way in the beginning...." And it won't be that way in the end. So it can't be "righteous."

 

[Just Another User]

please forgive my abruptness, I only posted that to keep folks debating Orthodoxy. you are more than welcome to post and debate us here.

My apologies, brother. I think I can be accused as just the same amount of abruptness if not more in this situation as you. Thank you for your politeness

 

[Just Another User]

If war is never just or righteous and we as Christians are told to be righteous and to avoid unrighteous, then how can we support war anyway?

Even if we presuppose that war is "necessary" in the context of protecting a realm, shouldn't we let the ungodly and pagans fight rather than those who know that such things are never just? I concede that we live in a fallen world but that doesn't give us a right to declare war on other for this reason. When has the fall ever given us a right to commit acts of sin anyway?

Finally, since both sides of war nearly always believe they're right, they will be Christians killing Christians. If this occurs than I can only see war as a means of the Devil to divide Christians

 

[DennisTate]

war is never just, even though it might be necessary in our fallen condition. even when commanded by God, it's because He has to deal with us and how we abuse our freedom.

the war in heaven didn't involve humans killing each other. remember the OT verses are before the Incarnation, so the words of Christ clarify the OT.

Truly..... we Christians could even take a life.......
but we could so it without hatred for the person whose life we take.......

Obviously... a criminal with a record like that of Mr. Ted Bundy.....
I think that I could give the lethal injection or hit the switch to take his life......
(assuming that I had the training to do so)....
but I would not be justified in hating him no matter what he did......
because as a Christian I think that I am supposed to identify myself with the "notable prisoner" Barabbas / Bar Abbas..... who had committed both murder as well as sedition.... but was released
while Messiah Yeshua - Jesus went to the cross.

Many worldly armies function like a bunch of Ted Bundy's..... what the army of Saddam Hussein did when they invade Kuwait is actually mind boggling. Especially to the nurses from Egypt and certain other nations that they captured.

Matthew 5:22

But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.

 

[ArmyMatt]

My apologies, brother. I think I can be accused as just the same amount of abruptness if not more in this situation as you. Thank you for your politeness

it's all good, thank you for yours.

 

[Varangian Christian]

By the way - I think you mean the Deuterocanon, and I agree it's good "catching up" for those of us not used to it. But please be wary of truly Apocryphal books (those outright rejected by the Church - not just rejected from the canon - even in small part) until you have a very good handle on what to accept (which takes years, apparently). There's good reason they are rejected and can cause real confusion.

Yes, that was the term I was looking for. Thank you.

As far as the Church's position on war - we can infer a few things.

There are soldier-Saints. However ... a person who has killed another person, even in war or in defense of the innocent, is still prescribed to abstain from the Eucharist for a period of time, because even when "necessary" - the taking of human life is an offense against the image of God in men and a serious sin.

It's not a simple answer. If God's order were being followed, there would be no reason for wars or killing. But because men are sinful, sometimes the "need" arises. Or at least the situation where it can be the more righteous thing to do. But it is still a serious and grievous thing to kill a person. One image of God destroying another image of God. The world is fallen and in deep sin.

Does the Church still ban soldiers who have killed in war from communion for three years?

I agree. Since humans are the image of God it is always, in a way, a sin to harm them. Yet, God commanded wars in the time of the church as well gave rulers the divine right to use the sword to bring terror to evil. Does my initial summary fit with the Church's teaching?:

"My own belief on this matter is that war done in defense of the country, the innocent, in opposition to evil or by the will of God is not a sin like unto murder or other damnable sins like sodomy, adultery, etc. Rather it is classified as a "sin" in that it is not perfection and thus not to be desired, but is necessary in this world where evil exists and must be opposed."

I have tried not to use the terms just, righteous, etc, in this summary. In the Western mindset I think war is called just because it opposes evil, but in Orthodoxy it should not be called just because it drastically misses the mark of perfection... is this correct?

 

[~Anastasia~]

I think I erred in my choice of words - I should not have mentioned even that it is the "more righteous" thing to do if I might imply the Church believes in "just wars".

It can be the less evil thing to do. But still evil, yes - in that it misses the mark and destroys a person made in God's image.

I'm not sure if a soldier returning from war must abstain for three years. I suspect the actual time prescribed will depend on the person (and the clergy) and what they deem is best. It is not a punishment, remember, but always medicine for the soul. If a person needs to understand the depths of their sin in order to properly repent, being barred from the Eucharist can help. I'm sure I'm not explaining all the nuances and this is a pastoral matter. I only know stories of what has been done and how it affected people, and sometimes a certain period was given for a grievous sin, but then the Confessor saw the person's repentance and shortened the time. I'm only a layperson hearing stories though, not a priest applying medicine to the soul, so there's not much I need to know.

The canons are applied pastorally though.

 

[Varangian Christian]

I think I erred in my choice of words - I should not have mentioned even that it is the "more righteous" thing to do if I might imply the Church believes in "just wars".

It can be the less evil thing to do. But still evil, yes - in that it misses the mark and destroys a person made in God's image.

I'm not sure if a soldier returning from war must abstain for three years. I suspect the actual time prescribed will depend on the person (and the clergy) and what they deem is best. It is not a punishment, remember, but always medicine for the soul. If a person needs to understand the depths of their sin in order to properly repent, being barred from the Eucharist can help. I'm sure I'm not explaining all the nuances and this is a pastoral matter. I only know stories of what has been done and how it affected people, and sometimes a certain period was given for a grievous sin, but then the Confessor saw the person's repentance and shortened the time. I'm only a layperson hearing stories though, not a priest applying medicine to the soul, so there's not much I need to know.

The canons are applied pastorally though.

Thank you for explaining this to me. God bless

 

[~Anastasia~]

Thank you for explaining this to me. God bless

You're welcome if it could help.

God be with you.