Isn't war evil?

[Nater_Tater]

i find it hard to believe that any human being with any sense of morals whatsoever can start a war, at least when unprovoked. whos with me?

Yeah I'm with you on that one too.

 

[inquisitor_11]

Then do the good christian thing and don't vote for Bush.

 

[xtxArchxAngelxtx]

Then do the good christian thing and don't vote for Bush.

that was a low blow lol

 

[Ave Maria]

I'm generally a Pacifist and oppose wars. However, some wars are justified. The war in Afghanistan was justified, the war in Iraq was not, World War II was justified, the Vietnam and Korean wars were not. Basically if a war is declared to defend yourself against someone who has been proved to be a threat to your country then war is justified. War is definitely justified in cases where the other country attacks you first. But I don't believe in playing world police and trying to settle other's conflicts.

 

[Nater_Tater]

I'm generally a Pacifist and oppose wars. However, some wars are justified. The war in Afghanistan was justified, the war in Iraq was not, World War II was justified, the Vietnam and Korean wars were not. Basically if a war is declared to defend yourself against someone who has been proved to be a threat to your country then war is justified. War is definitely justified in cases where the other country attacks you first. But I don't believe in playing world police and trying to settle other's conflicts.

I agree, there was never any FACTUAL evidence that Iraq was a threat to the United States.

 

[ONE WHO REMAINS]

People speaking of war and never being in one is wierd. I have and still am involved in one. And no it is not wrong biblically. I think we should start and win the war over sin. I am trying to start a revival world wide and unite the christians of all faiths to win back this world for our GOD in heaven, WHOS WITH ME? Please PM me.

 

[daidhaid]

i find it hard to believe that any human being with any sense of morals whatsoever can start a war, at least when unprovoked. whos with me?

I can endorse that.

 

[jkotinek]

This is a post I wrote on the same topic at another bulletin board I frequent:

Good topic. I'll post some cursory responses to get the ball rolling; hopefully it will generate some more debate. But first, I should probably once again make clear my stance on pacifism as a christian perspective (not that any other pacifism is somehow diminished, just that my arguments might have some points of departure). I see a separation between church and state as essential and necessary to the health of both. It is exactly at those points in history when the Church (as an institution, not necessarily the idividuals of which it is composed) got too involved in politics that we see the major blemishes, both internal and external.



War is a political tool aimed at securing some objective by force. Ideally, this tool is implemented when other, less risky, tools have proved useless. War is a sad symptom and disease of the corruption of humanity, especially as it concerns the abuse of inequalities in power. Christ commanded us to love one another, even to the point of emulating His relationship to the Trinity: that reason for which we were intentionally created. So, to a Christian who is expected—no matter what their denominational background—to emulate Christ, participation in the exercise of power over one another should at least be suspect and only undertaken out of great necessity (if at all) and then only with the grief-filled understanding that the action is an offense not only to our call as Christians, but also a departure from our created intent.



Nations/states are political organizations formed for the protection of common interests. Rousseau noted that constituents of these political organizations voluntarily submit themselves to the power of the nation/state in exchange for the benefits accorded to members of the society. We have the happy situation of living in a nation that allows us as constituents to be a part of the process of identifying what those benefits will be and how they will be distributed. Further, we are not required to participate fully in the process to receive benefits. As the world in which we live is composed of other nation/states that also desire to exercise whatever power they have at their disposal, it is sometimes politically expedient for the nation in which we live to also engage in war for our protection against others who might want to take what we have.



For American Christians this means that, unlike some historical situations where Christians might find their faith-based perspective at odds with an unfriendly regime, we have the opportunity to exercise a moral objection to participation in war while still benefiting from the protection such a war might conceivably provide. We are also obligated, as individual citizens of the nation, to elect representation that best represent our viewpoints.



To this point, my construction has been fairly one-dimensional. It is very true that from the third century on, there have been equally respected traditions in the Church on both sides of the issue. Aquinas developed a systematic apology for the way in which it might be acceptable for Christians to participate in war (developed into the Just War theory), yet at the heart of his explanation also lies the idea that war is not something to be undertaken lightly, and then as righteously merciful as possible.



Even for Christians who affirm Just War theory, an action such as Afghanistan is untenable because it was a retaliatory response. In that sense, Iraq is a acceptable action because it better fits the criteria (though not fully, I remain unconvinced that diplomatic channels were exhausted): a righteous cause, a good chance of winning, a good chance to complete objectives without the loss of innocent or unnecessary life, and not an action undertaken out of pride or lust of power.



In a secular political sense, however, Afghanistan makes more sense. To some extent, people understand a show of force as a deterrent. If you annihilate the kid who takes a swing at you, the other bullies on the playground leave you alone.



Finally, to get to the question at hand, a Christian perspective that takes into account the history of pacifism is not concerned with life as it is in our fallen world (as LOYAL AG so eloquently noted on B&P yesterday), but is idealistic in a very real sense of the word in that we understand that Christ’s salvific work is not limited in some Manicheastic sense to our spirituality, but also to our physical world; it is literally a transformative event. To live in Christ’s kingdom, then, is to participate in a transformed world that is often at odds with the fallen one. Witeness how those saints have done so throughout history have also had the distinction many times of dying for their troubles.



So, to the assertion that:

Pacifism failed, the Vatican failed. Most of the critics of force did nothing that stopped it.

I must answer that spiritually grounded pacifism cannot fail because it is literally participation in the unity of the Trinity with our fellow human beings. It is quite possible that we have failed pacifism or have failed to be faithful enough to convince God to intervene as at Sodom and Gomorrah, or perhaps looking at the situation from such a broad perspective allows us to miss out on the individual triumphs of pacifism.

He was of the view that literally without the American armies from the West, the Russians from the East using military force not diplomacy --- the Holocaust would have gone right on until every Jew was dead.

And as political organizations outside of God’s covenant, probably merited grace for such an action as we see demonstrated in the OT.

It made one think strongly about the current confrontation with Islamofascism. What lesson is to be drawn from this? I may post this on B&P, as there it has different answers, but his point was sobering and almost obvious.

It was not unarmed Christians or demonstrations and courts that stopped the Holocaust and fascism. Only direct over-the-top militarism.



What does this suggest idealism's role is today? What are the limits?



To return more to the thread's query then, what role does pacifism have? Does it even work? It would have doomed the Jews it appears.

There is certainly the danger of over-simplifying the matter, and I don’t wish to do so here. Christ also tells us that he is love; that the greatest love a man can have is to lay down his life for his friends; and that he who saves his life will lose it, but he who lays down his life for the sake of Christ will save it. Clearly, for a Christian this becomes an intimately spiritual decision. Christ’s laying down of life certainly wasn’t militaristic, it was defiant: he refused to play along with the system and give Pilate a reason not to crucify him. Yet, as we know from the story of His Passion, even that act of submission was powerfully different enough to change the life of one of His executioners, the centurion John who stood at the foot of the cross and worshiped Christ’s sacrifice as did Mary Magdelene, the Theotokos, and the Apostle John.



To turn the question a bit, pacifism didn’t/wouldn’t have doomed the Jews, men working evil did. I have no disillusions or delusions of grandeur about pacifism, but I do know that it is the maximalist position to which we are called, and rationalizing participation in the prosecution of war amounts to a lack of faith that God will use my faithfulness to His purpose.

(Sorry for the out-of-place references to posters from the other board)

For another perspective on Christian opposition to war, and all other life-destroying acts, check out:
http://www.incommunion.org

 

[DeltaJ]

I'm generally a Pacifist and oppose wars. However, some wars are justified. The war in Afghanistan was justified, the war in Iraq was not, World War II was justified, the Vietnam and Korean wars were not. Basically if a war is declared to defend yourself against someone who has been proved to be a threat to your country then war is justified. War is definitely justified in cases where the other country attacks you first. But I don't believe in playing world police and trying to settle other's conflicts.

you call freeing millions of people from a ruthless dictator and giving them freedom is unjustified. i could care less if there are no WMDs. the U.S. used to help countrys and their people defeat oppression ( korea, Nam, grenada,ect) with no gain to ourselves except the defeat of tryany. until you left wing wackos took over and screwed things up like Nam and Somalia cause your scared of blood. (58,000 america lives wasted in Nam because you libreals chickened out). the church says if an evil is causing harm to the helpless those in authority must dispose of them. and who else can do it besides the U.S. why do you think God made os the world's only superpower. to sit back on are asses and watch evil take over the world. how many times have we militarily tried to settle other nations conflicts. never we only intervened when one party was slaughtering another unjustly. like desert storm. did we butt in on the Iran Iraq war, nope Isreal and Palelistine, nope
Russia and the slavics nope. bosnia was the UNs big idea if they had kept there noses we would have been able to finish the job. if they would kept their noses out of Iraq we could do a better job. if everyone would support our troops and president we would be doing alot better job. during WWII everyone supported their troops and president and pitched in on the war effort. And we deffeat three very powerful evils in 4 years. now were trying to stop terrorists from disrupting a country the size of california. it shouldn't be taking this long. but it is taking this long because of the fight back at home. and by calling a war our troops fought and died in to protect a defenless people unjust makes them the bad guys because they also want to be there. being christian and libreal is an oxymoron. exaple: you can't be libreal with out supporting abortion and other things God says is wrong. do the christian thing and vote for Bush.

 

[inquisitor_11]

Yeah, Grenada, Korea and Nam were all about defeating opression....

Do you even know anything about the regimes that the US installed/suppported in those countries?

The way I remember it, Jesus had a lot more to say about greed, injustice and hypocritical religious institutions. Come to think of it, Jesus never speaks about abortion in the cannonical gospels, despite the fact that abortion in his day consisted of leaving infants on the side of the road to die.

Mercy and Justice is what God delights in, not religo-centric nationalism.

 

[DeltaJ]

well S.korea is in pretty good shape. no persecution there. I don't think the few corupt leaders in Nam in a comparison to the 3 million killed because we let the communists killed is anything compared. i think they would have rathered had us stay. And the great president Reagan didn't put a corupt regime in grenada and they all seem pretty happy too. how do I know. we don't hear anything on the news a both them. and if their was a problem we would be sure to hear about becuase the libreal media would like to cause as many problems as they can.

 

[daidhaid]

s korea is doing ok now but a few years ago people were rioting mostly over human and civil rights.
Mid 70's it was common for soldiers to stop busses at gunpoint and I've seen people dragged off for questioning. No one would discuss it and Koreans I knew told me it was dangerous to express opinion.
Korea has also exerted some independence from America and I've heard we are cutting back troops.
As for Nam every government that we installed was corrupt. I don't think to many of the people wanted the war or us.
There were pro US there, mostly on our payroll or deriving a profit from us, but the mass of people wanted all foriegn armies out.
If the VC had survived as a political faction the NVA would have been restrained and the terrible excesses post war might not have happened

Grenada ok how can anyone there be unhappy it's a tropical island. We used it as an object lession, to the region, on being to friendly with Cuba.

Panama geez Noriaga was our guy until he crossed some line on a CIA drug deal or something worse.
I'm sure "the people" love us down there.

 

[DeltaJ]

do you really belong to the pysco U.N. or have they just brained washed you. why don't you ask a NAM vet if they wanted us there or not.

 

[daidhaid]

do you really belong to the pysco U.N. or have they just brained washed you. why don't you ask a NAM vet if they wanted us there or not.

Your a funny guy, but I'll try to take you seriously.
As a matter of fact I am a Nam Vet.
got a cmb around here someplace
I was an infantry medic in Nam and later in Korea in the mid 70's
saw combat casualties in both places.
Did a total of 6 yrs active mostly in combat arms.

no I'm not in the UN I just think they have a pretty flag

 

[DeltaJ]

well i no plenty NAM vets (vietnow) and they says their glad they where there and the people wanted us there. you must be kerrys last brother. http://www.scaryjohnkerry.com/vietnam.htm

 

[gnine]

do you really belong to the pysco U.N. or have they just brained washed you. why don't you ask a NAM vet if they wanted us there or not.

<chuckle>

Stepped right into that one, didn't he!

 

[daidhaid]

well i no plenty NAM vets (vietnow) and they says their glad they where there and the people wanted us there. you must be kerrys last brother. http://www.scaryjohnkerry.com/vietnam.htm

I KNOW a lot of Nam Vets and their opinions are pretty mixed on the subject of the Nam War.
I doubt that a majority believe we were wanted by the people of Viet Nam.
BTW most Vets are more respectful of another Vets different opinion.
The most intolerant Vets I've run into were REMF's.
No I'm not Kerrys last? brother.
I'm leaning towards Nader but Kerry will do in a pinch.
And I do respect his service in and against war.

 

[daidhaid]

<chuckle>

Stepped right into that one, didn't he!

yeah kids these daze... Ya gotta love them.

 

[goin_in_the_army]

look in duteronomy 20 i belive it clearly states in the title of that section going to war yes wars wrong but how can we avoid it

 

[daidhaid]

we are somewhat fortunate in this and a few other countries around the world to have some sort of elected democratic government.
we have a responsibility to choose in a very general way how our government conducts itself.
we also have the right to speak out; to promote, decry, protest, and acclaim,
Choose well and you will have leaders who see war as an option not as a goal.
Choose poorly and you will get whatever they want to give you.
Most wars can be avoided just like most fights can be avoided.
ps
check out the thread in Military forum about General Butler's speech on war.