Justifyable War?

[mooduck1]

DiscipleDave said >>>. <<<

DiscipleDave said >>>

[/color]


Hebrew 8:6: But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises. 7: For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second. 8: For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:

Hebrews 8:13: In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.

Hebrews 10:9: Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second. ( Christ fulfilled the Laws of the Old Testament, they are complete, DONE WITH, OVER, We are now under a NEW covenant with Jesus Christ, we are not to obey the teachings of Moses, but we are to obey the teachings of Christ. )Have to conceed here, you make an interesing point here. I'll have to research it..hmmm

DiscipleDave said >>> more later gotta go to work.

 

[SonOfSophroniscus]

Justification on moral grounds results in either circularity or infinite regress [Why is X wrong? Because it's wrong/Why is X wrong?/Because I don't like it, ad nauseum] - I wouldn't go there. Instead appeal to the universal rights of human beings which should be fought for and established. Once done so, utility will necessarily follow.

 

[ScottBot]

Justification on moral grounds results in either circularity or infinite regress [Why is X wrong? Because it's wrong/Why is X wrong?/Because I don't like it, ad nauseum] - I wouldn't go there. Instead appeal to the universal rights of human beings which should be fought for and established. Once done so, utility will necessarily follow.

Good idea. why don't you just list those universal rights so we all know what they are.

 

[SonOfSophroniscus]

My superb fellow, I possess no knowledge of such fine things; I leave it to wiser heads to determine them.

Good idea. why don't you just list those universal rights so we all know what they are.

 

[ScottBot]

My superb fellow, I possess no knowledge of such fine things; I leave it to wiser heads to determine them.

So, how are we supposed to elevate the conversation and appeal to universal rights, if no-one can enumerate them. That leads us back to relativism.

 

[SonOfSophroniscus]

Er, what relativism are you referring to?

So, how are we supposed to elevate the conversation and appeal to universal rights, if no-one can enumerate them. That leads us back to relativism.

 

[ScottBot]

Er, what relativism are you referring to?

A universal right appeals to everyone. relativism says what's good for me is good, and what's bad for me is bad. The problem with this model is that what's good for me may be bad for you. A universal right is something that is applicable to all people at all times in all situations.

 

[SonOfSophroniscus]

Do you think that it's a universal good to be well fed and watered?

A universal right appeals to everyone. relativism says what's good for me is good, and what's bad for me is bad. The problem with this model is that what's good for me may be bad for you. A universal right is something that is applicable to all people at all times in all situations.

 

[Silenus]

Dvd writes . . .

Paul does not argue in Romans for Christian to join that authority. Right after that, Paul says that love does no harm and give to all their due. Now, I will add 1 Corith. 3 where everything we do will be building upon the foundation (of the Kingdom) with two types of materials. However, the gospels and every epistle are teaching the kingdom of God. The Kingdom of God is about righteous, proper relationships (peace), and joy the Holy Spirit. This SpiritualKingdom crosses the lines of all kingdoms, but it should by that everything that is done by Christian is a reflection of mercy, grace, and love that we might build up all people. Do you think that God is able to physical stop the guy who is smacking 49 people from doing it? He does have the power, but God has forbearance, long suffering, and goodness to lead people to repentance. Do you mold God’s forbearance, long suffering, and goodness by demanding wrath for the before the 50th hit? God has set up the time for judgment of the world and given you a chance for a Jubilee right now…but do you want it for yourself only? Do you want it for those who are just convenient to you? Do you want God to give you peace, honor, and everlasting life than you display everlasting life now. God has chosen this world to continue to suffer…because in the suffering we are joined together and closer to God. Suffering is symbolized as being in a desert, and notice...

But, are defending the innocent and vengeance the same thing, are they comparable? All the arguments I have seen have equated them as the same, but I don’t think they are. Also, no one has yet to explain why the apostles weren’t excommunicating governors and soldiers if their service in the military and government were contrary to the life of a Christian. I agree with your statement about the kingdom of God, but the old saying is also true, that until Christ come back, for the faithful, wars will never cease. I still say that Daniel is a perfect example if one want to know how to be in government and a Christian at the same time. And look at the Vengeance he enacts on the enemies of the Jews. And remember also, before you throw the that is the old testament flag, that Christ came to fulfill not overthrow the law and the prophets.

Giver writes . . .

(Matthew 5:39) “You have learnt how it was said: ‘Eye for eye and tooth for tooth.’ But I say this to you: offer the wicked man no resistance.”

It seem Jesus has told us what to do, but when people don’t have the faith to follow his Word they look for all kinds of exceptions. Well go ahead, but ask yourselves what do you really think offer the wicked man no resistance means? If you can’t accept what the word say then why don’t you ask Jesus?

You have left many objections without response, the lack of apostolic condemnation of soldiers and governors, the difference between defending the innocent and vengeance, and the Romans 13 powers given to government. Maybe you answered them before, but you have not touched these objections since I have been here. I’ll look back to see if there was a post where you did, but, if you didn’t would you mind answering these assertions instead of quoting the same verse. Because, if you can’t answer those questions, this verse has a different context than the one you are giving it.

 

[Piedpiper123]

I still say that Daniel is a perfect example if one want to know how to be in government and a Christian at the same time. And look at the Vengeance he enacts on the enemies of the Jews.

Well done Daniel!

 

[dvd_holc]

But, are defending the innocent and vengeance the same thing, are they comparable? All the arguments I have seen have equated them as the same, but I don’t think they are. Also, no one has yet to explain why the apostles weren’t excommunicating governors and soldiers if their service in the military and government were contrary to the life of a Christian. I agree with your statement about the kingdom of God, but the old saying is also true, that until Christ come back, for the faithful, wars will never cease. I still say that Daniel is a perfect example if one want to know how to be in government and a Christian at the same time. And look at the Vengeance he enacts on the enemies of the Jews. And remember also, before you throw the that is the old testament flag, that Christ came to fulfill not overthrow the law and the prophets..

He fulfilled Torah and the Prophets. However, Jesus had authority over Torah. Torah was rooted in Temple, ethinic purity, and Land. However, Jesus expanded and some areas unbound certain commandments developing a new Kingdom message. In the first exodus, God commanded the people to participate in stoning of people; however, Jesus said those who have not sinned cast the first stone. But do you want to cast stones? You say you want to defend the innocent, will you die for the innocent? All authority in Heaven and on Earth is given to Jesus through the Baptism, Transfiguration, and Resurrection. If only you knew the things that made for proper relationship, but...

 

[Silenus]

He fulfilled Torah and the Prophets. However, Jesus had authority over Torah. Torah was rooted in Temple, ethinic purity, and Land. However, Jesus expanded and some areas unbound certain commandments developing a new Kingdom message. In the first exodus, God commanded the people to participate in stoning of people; however, Jesus said those who have not sinned cast the first stone. But do you want to cast stones? You say you want to defend the innocent, will you die for the innocent? All authority in Heaven and on Earth is given to Jesus through the Baptism, Transfiguration, and Resurrection. If only you knew the things that made for proper relationship, but...

I'm not sure how your post is a response to what I said, yes, jesus' fulfillment of the l;aw changed things, although adultory is wrong in both new and old testament, we don't punish with stoning, we meet unrepentence with excommunication. The punishment changed, but as far as the moral law is concerned, its still not cool to committ adultory or back talk your parents. Of course, we don't need to divide our fields, but that was ceremonial, it was a symbol of christ and the church which you don't need once Christ comes. Anyway, what does that have to do with the four unanswered objections that have been raised to the anti-war argument? How is defending the innnocent equivalent to throwing stones in a punitive sense? And, yes, if someone is willing to stand up for the innocent against the violent, one is willing to die for them . . .

I'm not trying to be sarcastic, I just don't see your point.

 

[mooduck1]

Ok, if I just throw my question out there, you're all gonna say it's time for me to start a different thread. So let me preface my question by saying that we are still talking about 'justifible war' and whether or not there IS such a thing. I have to confess that Disciple Dave stumped me last night and drove my rational for 'a time to kill' seemingly right into the ground. I have always felt that the OT is equally as equally infallible and the New, and frankly, until Disciple dave brought up Hebrews 7-8 last night, I'd never even have considered the Idea that the OT was actually 'flawed'. Yes, yes, I knew there were 2 different covenants, but PERHAPSE I am not as clear as I thought I was as to why. I've read my Bible...all of it, but I confess that I do not have the retention rate as some in theis forum so please be patient with me. I am realizing that aside from the Romans references( which I do not thing the pacifists have saticfactorally addressed) those who deny ANY doctrine of a 'just war' are with Disciple Dave in that they Believe the OT IS FLAWED based on Hebrews 7-8 saying that the Old covanant was flawed. The OT is critical for anyone wanting to defending 'just war'. This issue has to be cleared up before I can go any further with a 'just war' discussion because if we are both using different source material to make our claims then we are unequally burdened and will never see eye to eye, and I'm here to LEARN not just to argue. So my question is this in HEB 7-8 is Paul saying that old covanant was flawed or invalid because the people bound to it could not keep it's terms and couldn't be righteous as GOD called them to be because they were under the curse of sin? OR is the old covanant invalid because it not wholly what God intended? Were there statements of 'truth' in the OT, such as 'there is a time to kill' that are not valid for all times? What has changed, God or man?? I'm leaning toward MAN even as I write this, however my intent with THIS postis not to make a statement but t ask a question..or two.

 

[ScottBot]

If there was no such thing as a "justifiable war", Jesus would not have talked about how the wise king plans for battle. He would have called him a foolish king. Since wisdom comes from God, using the faculty of wisdom to plan for war indicates that God doesn't condemn all war.

 

[dvd_holc]

I'm not sure how your post is a response to what I said, yes, jesus' fulfillment of the l;aw changed things, although adultory is wrong in both new and old testament, we don't punish with stoning, we meet unrepentence with excommunication. The punishment changed, but as far as the moral law is concerned, its still not cool to committ adultory or back talk your parents. Of course, we don't need to divide our fields, but that was ceremonial, it was a symbol of christ and the church which you don't need once Christ comes. Anyway, what does that have to do with the four unanswered objections that have been raised to the anti-war argument? How is defending the innnocent equivalent to throwing stones in a punitive sense? And, yes, if someone is willing to stand up for the innocent against the violent, one is willing to die for them . . .

I'm not trying to be sarcastic, I just don't see your point.

War is act of stoning. War is an act of judgment against injustice (being mindful of the future). (Or as the aggressor, it is act of selfishness, but we are looking at war as the defense of innocents issue.) Likewise, stoning is an act of judgment against injustice (being mindful of the future). You divide this onto political issues where war is act of judgment of a nation against another nation while stoning is an act of moral or personal level; however, there is no line in the sand in Jesus day. The political world and religious world are the same line.

Jesus had the option of war in the first century. The zealots read the Torah and said no foreign rule. Also, they looked at the:
Numbers 25:10The LORD said to Moses, 11“Phinehas son of Eleazar, the son of Aaron, the priest, has turned my anger away from the Israelites. Since he was as zealous for my honor among them as I am, I did not put an end to them in my zeal. 12Therefore tell him I am making my covenant of peace with him. 13He and his descendants will have a covenant of a lasting priesthood, because he was zealous for the honor of his God and made atonement for the Israelites.”

So, the zealots went and killed Romans and any comprising Jew who accepted Hellenizing influence in the hope that God would vindicate them. However, Jesus said love your enemy and cried at the zealots hope in Him of bring about the Kingdom through military means. “If only you knew the things that made for peace.” But peace is the huge word “shalom” which also means proper relationship. I alluded to many things in my post with the hope that you would work through them scriptures and surrounding passages. I have pointed out to you that God does not take us out of suffering but leads into suffering to witness our quality and likewise the is a conformation of people into Jesus by not resisting violence with violence. Which image do you want to conform to an soldier of a kingdom of this world or as a disciple of Jesus in the Kingdom of God fully present. Which master is it?

 

[dvd_holc]

Ok, if I just throw my question out there, you're all gonna say it's time for me to start a different thread. So let me preface my question by saying that we are still talking about 'justifible war' and whether or not there IS such a thing. I have to confess that Disciple Dave stumped me last night and drove my rational for 'a time to kill' seemingly right into the ground. I have always felt that the OT is equally as equally infallible and the New, and frankly, until Disciple dave brought up Hebrews 7-8 last night, I'd never even have considered the Idea that the OT was actually 'flawed'. Yes, yes, I knew there were 2 different covenants, but PERHAPSE I am not as clear as I thought I was as to why. I've read my Bible...all of it, but I confess that I do not have the retention rate as some in theis forum so please be patient with me. I am realizing that aside from the Romans references( which I do not thing the pacifists have saticfactorally addressed) those who deny ANY doctrine of a 'just war' are with Disciple Dave in that they Believe the OT IS FLAWED based on Hebrews 7-8 saying that the Old covanant was flawed. The OT is critical for anyone wanting to defending 'just war'. This issue has to be cleared up before I can go any further with a 'just war' discussion because if we are both using different source material to make our claims then we are unequally burdened and will never see eye to eye, and I'm here to LEARN not just to argue. So my question is this in HEB 7-8 is Paul saying that old covanant was flawed or invalid because the people bound to it could not keep it's terms and couldn't be righteous as GOD called them to be because they were under the curse of sin? OR is the old covanant invalid because it not wholly what God intended? Were there statements of 'truth' in the OT, such as 'there is a time to kill' that are not valid for all times? What has changed, God or man?? I'm leaning toward MAN even as I write this, however my intent with THIS postis not to make a statement but t ask a question..or two.

Ok, I hope to make this clear that you might understand my insight given to me by God. God created all things, but He did not make that creation static in design but dynamic. He made it to mature and be fruitful. God intended for the created order to accomplish things that He did not full explain. The first words of God took creation on a route, on a journey. The Devil and humans walked another path, but God did not design a world reflect instant judgment in the form of punishment against injustice. Rather, God spoke words of condemnation against the sinners and set times of judgments according to His planning. What it allowed is for God to continue to unfold His purpose for humanity and creation by leading humanity on a new path in spite of humans being sinful.

God made a covenant with humanity to restore the created order. Each covenant did not fully restore the world but gave humans the ability to participate in that process; to be a blessing. The covenants were complete acts of grace and mercy on God’s part. The humans who lived out the covenants molded or foreshadowed that future redeemed world, but each covenant was not complete image of that future because it was dealing with the current sinfulness. The covenants of Humans (Adam and Eve), Noah, Abraham, Moses, David, etc…all pointed to Messiah and redemption of the covenantal people and all of creation.

In the first century, they awaited for the consolation and redemption of Israel out of their current exile. Jesus led the people out of exile and established the new covenant of God with the covenantal people which was foretold by Moses and the Prophets. This covenant implemented the achievement of the Messiah which the others anticipated. This current age is the donning of the Messianic age, the new restored creation.

Likewise, the word of God was taking the creation into a new deeper fellowship. This covenant is not like the previous covenants because the glory of God drew lines in the side, killed people in the first exile, and also when the glory of God descended on the Temple during the dedication of Solomon it pushed people out of His presence. Rather, this covenant took the covenantal people closer to proper relationship with God and established peace without condemnation because of the Messiah by God becoming more present inside of us and creation.

What we model as this Kingdom people with their eschatological freedom that God gave us in Christ. Because of our dependence on God’s mercy, we humbly display the image of mercy and grace. This is the parable of the gracious King and unmerciful servant. Each of us is servants of the new covenant, but will you display mercy or wrath? God will judge the whole world at the fulfillment of the fall appointed days, but we are called to merciful servants.

 

[razzelflabben]

Sounds good but in the real world it does not work out like that. Turning the cheek to a violent man gets you hit again and perhaps worse leaves him free to be violent to others. Violent people must be stopped and with violence if necessary. It does not matter if we are talking about Hitler or a local robber they must be stopped in their tracks!

By whose authority do you speak? when was the last time you turned your cheek to a violent man? What was the result?

 

[razzelflabben]

It is not disobedience. If I was not willing to stand up to a violent man then I would be a coward and part of the problem not part of the solution. The same principle applies internationally - we must stand up to wrong doers.

Here's the problem people see the passive Jesus who went as a lamb to the slaughter, but what of the "violent" Jesus who turned over the money changers tables and waged war against the pharisees? Is there not a time or season for everything?

 

[razzelflabben]

Only if you claim to be speaking for God.

Now I did not recall claiming to speak for God and so I reread the post in question and see nothing to suggest that I am, only a couple of simple questions. What makes you assume otherwise?

 

[ScottBot]

Now I did not recall claiming to speak for God and so I reread the post in question and see nothing to suggest that I am, only a couple of simple questions. What makes you assume otherwise?

There are posters lurking in these forums who do believe that they speak for God. Sorry if you felt that my comment was aimed at you.