Jesus says to love our neighbor as ourselves, and to turn the other cheek. Knowing this, it's clear that we should never support war of any kind. However, I know many Christians (I use the term loosely) who support war. Why is that?
-
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.
Should we ever support war?
- Thread starter Ike_87
- Start date
When Jesus referred to turning the other cheek, he didn't mean we couldn't defend ourselves if attacked. The slapping of the cheek back then was more of an insult, it ever evolved. Often in cultures if you were slapped on the cheek, the person would offer the other cheek, if you were slapped again, that's the double insult. This tradition continued for generations, the famous taking off the glove and slapping someones cheek, which often led to duels.
Sadly, today we often go to war, not to protect ourselves but to use lies, such as Bush did for the Iraq war. Like any leader he then rallied people into patriotic fervor and people followed without much questioning. First it was about WMD's that didn't exist, then he tried to connect Saddam to Bin Ladin, that failed, then it was about spreading freedom. The war was about gaining political control over oil. They're another dozen nations then that actually had WMDs and supported terror we ignored, they had no oil.
Often what we call self interest are really selfish interest. We have no energy policy, so we need to control the land and resources of others. We wouldn't let others do it to us, but we do it because we have the power. Saddam was surrounded, poor and no threat, sanctions alone were killing over 500,000 a year. Still, most christians backed Bush. Now were stuck, trillion in debt from the war, close to a million total dead and Iraq will slip into chaos should we leave. Bush Sr had more right to invade Iraq and would not do so based on taking war to civilians, we would have to rule and no way out...he was right.
Certainly we had the right to deal with the Taliban, but we blew it and now Pakistan is very unstable.
War is dangerous and we must be careful. Our services are made to defend america, not spread freedom to the world.
Sadly, today we often go to war, not to protect ourselves but to use lies, such as Bush did for the Iraq war. Like any leader he then rallied people into patriotic fervor and people followed without much questioning. First it was about WMD's that didn't exist, then he tried to connect Saddam to Bin Ladin, that failed, then it was about spreading freedom. The war was about gaining political control over oil. They're another dozen nations then that actually had WMDs and supported terror we ignored, they had no oil.
Often what we call self interest are really selfish interest. We have no energy policy, so we need to control the land and resources of others. We wouldn't let others do it to us, but we do it because we have the power. Saddam was surrounded, poor and no threat, sanctions alone were killing over 500,000 a year. Still, most christians backed Bush. Now were stuck, trillion in debt from the war, close to a million total dead and Iraq will slip into chaos should we leave. Bush Sr had more right to invade Iraq and would not do so based on taking war to civilians, we would have to rule and no way out...he was right.
Certainly we had the right to deal with the Taliban, but we blew it and now Pakistan is very unstable.
War is dangerous and we must be careful. Our services are made to defend america, not spread freedom to the world.
Upvote
0
Exd 15:3 The LORD [is] a man of war: the LORD [is] his name.
The most high is about war firstly, secondly:
Rev 6:4 And there went out another horse [that was] red: and [power] was given to him that sat thereon to take peace from the earth, and that they should kill one another: and there was given unto him a great sword.
This is the time we're in, reproof:
Mat 24:6 And ye shall hear of wars and rumours of wars: see that ye be not troubled: for all [these things] must come to pass, but the end is not yet.
Thirdly:
Mat 10:34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.
Who you ignorantly call Jesus Christ was about war, reproof:
Rev 1:13 And in the midst of the seven candlesticks [one] like unto the Son of man, clothed with a garment down to the foot, and girt about the paps with a golden girdle.
A girdle is what warriors wear, further reproof:
Luk 22:36 Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take [it], and likewise [his] scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.
Who you ignorantly call Jesus Christ was about war. Supporting it or not doesn't matter, now is the time of war, so there will be war. If you call yourself following the bible then you shouldn't have a problem with it.
The most high is about war firstly, secondly:
Rev 6:4 And there went out another horse [that was] red: and [power] was given to him that sat thereon to take peace from the earth, and that they should kill one another: and there was given unto him a great sword.
This is the time we're in, reproof:
Mat 24:6 And ye shall hear of wars and rumours of wars: see that ye be not troubled: for all [these things] must come to pass, but the end is not yet.
Thirdly:
Mat 10:34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.
Who you ignorantly call Jesus Christ was about war, reproof:
Rev 1:13 And in the midst of the seven candlesticks [one] like unto the Son of man, clothed with a garment down to the foot, and girt about the paps with a golden girdle.
A girdle is what warriors wear, further reproof:
Luk 22:36 Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take [it], and likewise [his] scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.
Who you ignorantly call Jesus Christ was about war. Supporting it or not doesn't matter, now is the time of war, so there will be war. If you call yourself following the bible then you shouldn't have a problem with it.
Upvote
0
Peacemakers are talking about peace between those who have come into the truth through who you ignorantly call jesus christ.
Isa 48:22 [There is] no peace, saith the LORD, unto the wicked.
So that peace isn't for everyone.
Upvote
0
Walter Kovacs
Justice is coming, no matter what we do.
- Jan 22, 2011
- 1,922
- 91
- Faith
- Christian Seeker
- Marital Status
- In Relationship
Cornelius, a centurion, a man of faith was a man of faith, and one who was devout in his worship of God, and was declared to have more faith than all of Israel by Jesus, and was not reproved for being a man of war. (There's two centurion stories in the Gospels, and I may have the name here wrong.)
Upvote
0
S
Spirko
Guest
Depends on the war. There's nothing in scripture that suggests Christians should not support a war if the war is just.
Upvote
0
Walter Kovacs
Justice is coming, no matter what we do.
- Jan 22, 2011
- 1,922
- 91
- Faith
- Christian Seeker
- Marital Status
- In Relationship
“In order for a war to be just, three things are necessary. First, the authority of the sovereign. Secondly, a just cause. Thirdly, a rightful intention.”
- Thomas Aquinas
- Thomas Aquinas
Upvote
0
Forrest GOP
Active Member
Look at it this way: Let us say you are in a village in France or Poland, and you see a division of Nazi Panzer tanks coming over the hill towards you with the ultimate goal of oppressing your neighbors and raping the land, the wealth, and probably the women too. Are just going to sit there and do nothing? Do you honestly think that Jesus would have you sit there and do nothing?
Obviously that is a very simple and direct example, but it demonstrates that there is such a thing as a "Just War" to protect your homes and your families. The tricky part in a world with ICBMs, briefcase nukes, germ warfare and general terrorism is discerning when offense is neccessary for defense. Things are not so cut-and-dry & simple as you are making them out to be.
Upvote
0
Harry3142
Regular Member
Note that the word is 'peacemakers', not 'peacekeepers'. A person can sit in his room, or even hide under his bed, and be legitimately called a peacekeeper. But he could not be legitimately called a peacemaker. You have to earn that title.
The soldier who defends his country against hostile forces, the law enforcement agent who ensures that criminals who would turn our streets into their own 'playgrounds' must answer for their antisocietal actions, even the news service that through its own work brought about the peace agreement between Egypt and Israel; these people can all be legitimately called peacemakers. But it is due to their having worked to earn that title that they can now wear it as their own.
Upvote
0
I am all for war when it is just and meets a critera. I am not for war because we want to control the resources of others and create lies to do so.
We certainly aren't to war to spread our beliefs or democracy. The Afgan war was just, but we gave up the end game to start another unjust war. Anybody can see all we created was a big mess with no way out in both cases. Why, because we took the eye off the just cause of war and used it turned to controlling the resources of others and still failed.
Throughout our history all sides have used "God" in war. Europe used it to take over much of the world. The US used it to destroy all the Indian tribes in America, control the Pacific, etc...
Certainly if America was interested in protecting the lives of others, we would be at war preventing genocide throughout Africa. Jesus may have not sat back, but we do, because they have no resouces we want to control.
We certainly aren't to war to spread our beliefs or democracy. The Afgan war was just, but we gave up the end game to start another unjust war. Anybody can see all we created was a big mess with no way out in both cases. Why, because we took the eye off the just cause of war and used it turned to controlling the resources of others and still failed.
Throughout our history all sides have used "God" in war. Europe used it to take over much of the world. The US used it to destroy all the Indian tribes in America, control the Pacific, etc...
Certainly if America was interested in protecting the lives of others, we would be at war preventing genocide throughout Africa. Jesus may have not sat back, but we do, because they have no resouces we want to control.
Upvote
0
Cooch
Regular Member
One of the criteria for a "just war" is that it should have a reasonable chance of success. Whether you like it or not, America does not have the resources to prevent genocide throughout Africa.
Another is that the outcome should be worth the cost (in lives, suffering and resources). Would you consider turning a large part of the African continent into an American colony, parts of which are only given independence when you paternalistically decide that they are fit to govern themselves again? Would you consider that worthwhile?
That we can do some things in some places, does not prove that we should do everything, everywhere.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
You make my point, we've been in Iraq and Afganistan longer than WW2 and they still can't govern themselves and we are in fact ruling them.
The US and Europe made colonies out of most the world, including Africa and the Mid-East, if you study your history, that led to many radical groups, so we defeat them and install brutal dictators to do our bidding, we see that now failing around the world. We've been repeating this process for a 100 years.
But I agree, we don't intervene unless the world will go with us. But when Bush couldn't prove WMD's..as facts showed none were never there, couldn't tie Saddam to terror, to him the war was about spreading Democracy....he goofed on all three. Close to a million dead, a trillion spent and no way out.....
Upvote
0
Standing_Ultraviolet
Dunkleosteus
- Jul 29, 2010
- 2,798
- 136
- 34
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Humanist
- Marital Status
- Private
- Politics
- US-Democrat
To the OP,
There are accounts of war throughout the Old Testament, starting (I believe) with Abraham rescuing his brother Lot from an army of Mesopotamians. Later, Joshua conquers the Canaanite people through military means, the Judges act to defend Israel militarily, and Israel fights wars on several ocassions.
So, from the fact that many military actions in the Old Testament are portrayed positively, it can reasonably be concluded that there is such a thing as a just war.
Not all war is just, and we have to be careful about supporting a particular war. That said, when a war is clearly just, then there is no reason why we cannot or should not support it.
There are accounts of war throughout the Old Testament, starting (I believe) with Abraham rescuing his brother Lot from an army of Mesopotamians. Later, Joshua conquers the Canaanite people through military means, the Judges act to defend Israel militarily, and Israel fights wars on several ocassions.
So, from the fact that many military actions in the Old Testament are portrayed positively, it can reasonably be concluded that there is such a thing as a just war.
Not all war is just, and we have to be careful about supporting a particular war. That said, when a war is clearly just, then there is no reason why we cannot or should not support it.
Upvote
0
Harry3142
Regular Member
In WW2 Germany could not say that it was fighting a just war. It was the aggessor, attacking the countries that surrounded it even after guaranteeing them that they were safe from attack.
But like any country that fights a war to conquer other countries, it finally 'bit off more than it could chew'. The other European countries were small enough so that their troops had to mass at their borders in order to defend their homeland. Germany counted on this, and its military tactics soon had these troops 'cut off' and surrounded, forcing them to surrender.
But when it attacked the USSR, Germany ran into major difficulty due to the vastness of its territory. Instead of having to mass at its borders, the troops of the USSR had so much land to work with that they were able to form 4 different defensive positions, each one farther back in its territory from the previous one.
The Germans attacked the first position, only to have the majority of it 'fall back' to the second position, and this continued until the Germans were so far into the USSR's territory that its own supply lines were vulnerable, its soldiers were fatigued, and its equipment was falling apart due to the workout it was getting. Added to this, now the majority of the men and materiel from the first three positions had joined forces with the fourth position, and the Germans were facing a monster that they could never survive, much less conquer.
And it's been the same with aggressors down through history. Inevitably,a conqueror goes too far and ends up being conquered. Their desire for more-and-more land subjugated to them is their Achilles' heel, driving them onward until it drives them to their own destruction. For this reason, a war of aggression will always eventually result in the total destruction of the aggressor, while a war defensive in nature will always eventually be joined by others until sufficient force is brought to bear on the aggressor to end his reign of terror.
But like any country that fights a war to conquer other countries, it finally 'bit off more than it could chew'. The other European countries were small enough so that their troops had to mass at their borders in order to defend their homeland. Germany counted on this, and its military tactics soon had these troops 'cut off' and surrounded, forcing them to surrender.
But when it attacked the USSR, Germany ran into major difficulty due to the vastness of its territory. Instead of having to mass at its borders, the troops of the USSR had so much land to work with that they were able to form 4 different defensive positions, each one farther back in its territory from the previous one.
The Germans attacked the first position, only to have the majority of it 'fall back' to the second position, and this continued until the Germans were so far into the USSR's territory that its own supply lines were vulnerable, its soldiers were fatigued, and its equipment was falling apart due to the workout it was getting. Added to this, now the majority of the men and materiel from the first three positions had joined forces with the fourth position, and the Germans were facing a monster that they could never survive, much less conquer.
And it's been the same with aggressors down through history. Inevitably,a conqueror goes too far and ends up being conquered. Their desire for more-and-more land subjugated to them is their Achilles' heel, driving them onward until it drives them to their own destruction. For this reason, a war of aggression will always eventually result in the total destruction of the aggressor, while a war defensive in nature will always eventually be joined by others until sufficient force is brought to bear on the aggressor to end his reign of terror.
Upvote
0
Standing_Ultraviolet
Dunkleosteus
- Jul 29, 2010
- 2,798
- 136
- 34
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Humanist
- Marital Status
- Private
- Politics
- US-Democrat
Upvote
0
Cooch
Regular Member
You are sadly ill-informed. Both countries have sovereign elected governments. That those governments do not currently have the military capacity to adequately ensure the security of their countries - yet - does not mean that Allied assistance in the matter equal Allied rule.
I know my history quite well, and I'm also well aware that prior to European colonisation (American participation in that exercise was almost non-existent) dictators were the rule, rather than the exception. However, none of this supports the argument that we should recolonise the whole of Africa now.
Again, you are sadly ignorant. Iraq has a duly elected government that is - within the limits of local culture - functioning reasonably effectively. Iraq has had no less than three polls, with a voter turnout that is comparable with that of any US election, in spite of the violence and intimidation from those who stood to lose.
You quote wildly exaggerated fatality figures, ignoring the facts that Saddam was killing his own people at higher rates still, and that the vast majority of those killed since the invasion were killed by those fighting against the democratically elected Iraqi government.
Don't believe the lie that there is no way out, either. Winning is the way out, and we continue to make progress in that direction. It is only a fool who believes that nominating a specific date on a calendar is the way to achive this.
Upvote
0
I believe that there are occasions where a Christian should support war. I believe in the concept of a just war. We need armies for the same reason we need police. Armies are necessary to resist ruthless and unscrupulous nations from taking advantage of weaker and helpless nations. In the Book of Revelation, Jesus Christ is depicted as a warrior leading the armies of heaven.
Upvote
0
M
MacNeil, D.
Guest
Let's pretend you live in the real world. China, in the year 1937, and the invading Japanese army will, over the next six weeks, murder about 300,000 civilians and surrendered soldiers. And 60,000 women will be raped.
You'd tell a Chinese Christian soldier to "turn the other cheek" and let the Japanese continue this outrage? You'd dare question the Christianity of a soldier fighting to protect his countrymen and women?
Seriously???
Upvote
0
Similar threads
