Should Christians go to war?

[_roblaine]

Personally, I think we should be willing to die preaching the Gospel in love to those who are getting ready to kill us. I would tell them that even if they kill me and my loved ones, I don't hold it against them and want them to know that God sent His Son to die for their sins, including killing me. If one day he will repent and call on the Lord for forgiveness and serves Him, he will be forgiven. That will be burned in his mind the rest of his life. That's what Jesus did. He didn't call down angels to fight for Him, nor did He fight for Himself. He did what is weak in man's eyes. Jesus gave His life and left the 11 disciples alone! Yet they were never really alone though, were they? Neither are we.

You are correct Sean. Jesus didn't call down angles to fight for him, but he did eventually judge that adulterous and evil generation. Was not the war of 70AD a judgment by Christ Himself? Were not many young men women and children killed, who may have repented later in their life?

As hard as it is to accept. God does use war to judge nations, and fulfill His righteous purpose. So it can not be easily assumed that war is always evil, and unjust. What would that say about God?

Robin

[Guest]

As hard as it is to accept. God does use war to judge nations, and fulfill His righteous purpose. So it can not be easily assumed that war is always evil, and unjust. What would that say about God?

The thing is Robin what the Romans did to the Jews was evil. The fact that God "sent them" does not justify their actions. Compare this with God's dealings with Assyria.

Isa 10:5 Woe to Assyria, the rod of My anger And the staff in whose hands is My indignation,
Isa 10:6 I send it against a godless nation And commission it against the people of My fury To capture booty and to seize plunder, And to trample them down like mud in the streets.
Isa 10:7 Yet it does not so intend, Nor does it plan so in its heart, But rather it is its purpose to destroy And to cut off many nations.

God sent Assyria to judge the Jews. He said that they were the "rod of His anger", yet really, God was simply using what they were going to do already. By allowing them to sack the Northern Kingdom, God "sent them". But it's not as if He placed it in thier hearts. Vs. 7 shows that they had evil motivations for what they did. And God later judged them for that. So He judged them, for doing what He wanted them to do, because they had evil motives.

Isa 10:12 So it will be that when the Lord has completed all His work on Mount Zion and on Jerusalem, He will say, "I will punish the fruit of the arrogant heart of the king of Assyria and the pomp of his haughtiness."

This could very well be the case when the American Forces go to war with another country, or vice versa.

Of course this does not mean that Israel, when commisioned directly by divine mandate, went to war, that they were doing anything evil, but that's a different scenario.

God bless,

[_roblaine]

Hi Derek,

You make a good argument for the retribution of God against the evil actions of the Assyrians. But does that translate to; all wars and those involved are evil? I would say no. Some of the actions that are taken by those in war are certainly un-just, but lets not through the baby out with the bath water. There can be and are good people Christian men and women that fight in wars, and the act of war itself is not un-just or evil.

Robin

[Guest]

But does that translate to; all wars and those involved are evil? I would say no.

I haven't said that "all wars are evil". It is a fact that some are more just than others. I am not sure I could call any war that God has not directly sanctioned "good" however. I don't think the end ever justifies the carnal means.

There can be and are good people Christian men and women that fight in wars, and the act of war itself is not un-just or evil.

I most certainly believe that good Christian men who are heaven bound fight in wars. I think they are mislead, of course. However, if they feel as if that's ok with God, I don't think they are condemned by Him or anything. They are doing what they think is right.

I am not sure how one comes to a really objective determination as to which war is "just" or not though. There are a myriad of complicated political reasons for entering into a war. It is much more complicated than America merely coming to the aid of those in need. If this were America's motivation, I think there are a lot of places that we would help. Like Africa for instance. Of course Africa has nothing we need, and we don't see a threat to our well being from there, so our altruism is stayed in that instance. (I'm not saying that it's America's responsibility to help by the way).

The combatants on each side receive their information through a filter of propaganda that their particular government is giving them. All of them are conditioned by their culture so that they inevitably feel that their side is in the right, and the enemy is wrong. Without a word from God, (which America has never recieved to my knowledge), it is not so clear cut as to what is santioned by Him, and what is a part of the power struggle of the governments of the world. I think it's safe to assume that 99.9 percent of war is caused by the latter.

Even if we could determine that a war was truely just, that does not decide whether or not Christians should kill, rather than love, their enemies. Should avenge, rather than leave vengance to God, should revile those that revile against us, instead of being like Jesus, who did not return evil with evil. I see no qualifiers in these commands.

Anyway, I know I said I was going to bring up some scriptures. This is my last post without scriptues.

God bless brother, and thanks for the discussion.

[_roblaine]

Hello Derek,

I am not sure how one comes to a really objective determination as to which war is "just" or not though. There are a myriad of complicated political reasons for entering into a war. It is much more complicated than America merely coming to the aid of those in need. If this were America's motivation, I think there are a lot of places that we would help. Like Africa for instance. Of course Africa has nothing we need, and we don't see a threat to our well being from there, so our altruism is stayed in that instance. (I'm not saying that it's America's responsibility to help by the way).

The primary abjection of our military is to protect American citizens. It would be vary sad to see another 911, where thousands more innocent and defenseless people are murdered in cold blood. There are of course US military service men in Africa serving where they are needed. But it seems, at this point they are needed in the Middle East because that is where the greatest threat to our citizens lay (Iran, Syria).

Also, to suggest that the US has not been involved in the humanitarian efforts in Africa is incorrect.

The combatants on each side receive their information through a filter of propaganda that their particular government is giving them. All of them are conditioned by their culture so that they inevitably feel that their side is in the right, and the enemy is wrong. Without a word from God, (which America has never recieved to my knowledge), it is not so clear cut as to what is santioned by Him, and what is a part of the power struggle of the governments of the world. I think it's safe to assume that 99.9 percent of war is caused by the latter.

Is a word of God required in order to launch a just war? I think not. Did the US receive a word from God before entering WWII? Was it unjust to fight the Nazis and imperialist Japan?

And how much propaganda does one have to hear in order to accept the mass killing of Jews, and Christians at the hands of Nazis? How much propaganda does it take to accept the brutal treatment of prisoners at the hands of Islamists, like the sawing off of one's head while they are still alive? No, I think this goes beyond propaganda. It comes down to fighting what is obviously evil, and those that perpetrate evil acts against innocent and defenseless people.

Even if we could determine that a war was truely just, that does not decide whether or not Christians should kill, rather than love, their enemies. Should avenge, rather than leave vengance to God, should revile those that revile against us, instead of being like Jesus, who did not return evil with evil. I see no qualifiers in these commands.

If I refuse to Kill my enemy and love him, and in turn he kills more and more. Am I not being unloving to my enemy’s victims? Are we not called to love everyone, not only our enemies? If I sat by and allowed my unsaved neighbors to be murdered, would that not be unloving?

Anyway, I know I said I was going to bring up some scriptures. This is my last post without scriptues.

Regardless, I’ve enjoyed the conversation.

Robin

[Guest]

I have struggled with the war question for decades!

Arguments on both sides seem valid. Indeed, when I get into a discussion with a Christian who believes we ought to participate in war, I argue with the arguments of the other side. But I argue the other way with one who believes Christians ought not to participate in war.

I, myself, still haven't arrived at a position with which I am fully satisfied ----- although I am inclined to the pacifist side. I think that Derek has made some valid points which have not yet been refuted.

As one man remarked to me, "Christ taught us to love our neighbour. How can I love my neighbour, if I pick up a gun and shoot him?"

[Guest]

But yet if the "neighbor" on my right points a gun to the "neighbor" on my left and is about to shoot him, which neighbor am I to love? I understand when it's about defending yourself... but, as many of the others have pointed out, it's when others lives are at stake that it's not quite as clear. Which one (the one harming others, or the ones being harmed) are we to love more?

[Guest]

You are right, Rae! There's no doubt you are right. One could be faced with making a decision as to who is going to be killed.

I would say, defend the neighbour who is about to be shot, without killing the other (if possible). But that may not be possible, and so it is truly a moral dilemma.

However, this moral dilemma is much easier to resolve than the one which is evident in war between the nations. Each side will have its justifications, and give out propoganda to convince you that the other side is totally evil. The propoganda is meant to convince you that the opposing country consists entirely of people who want to kill you or take advantage of you in some way. I doubt if this is ever the case.

The vast majority of people hear only their country's side of the story. When you hear only one side of the war story, how can you make a rational decision as to whether or not you should support your country's war effort?

Of course, in our day, we can get plenty of information through the Intenet from the other side's point of view. But we have been conditioned to think that any thing that comes from the other side is false propoganda.

[_roblaine]

Rae makes a very good point. You see the choice is not whether or not I can pick up a gun and shoot my neighbor and still love him. Because the simple answer would be, no. The question is this. If one neighbor is about to kill another, how can I show my love for both of my neighbors? Assuming that giving my own life is not an option, I have only two options.

1. Let neighbor 1 kill neighbor two, and then neighbor 2 is dead and neighbor 1 is a murderer.

OR

2. Stop neighbor 1 from killing neighbor 2 even if that means taking neighbor 1's life. Then I have neighbor 2 alive and neighbor 1 is dead, but at least he is not visiting God as a murderer.

Robin

[_roblaine]

The vast majority of people hear only their country's side of the story. When you hear only one side of the war story, how can you make a rational decision as to whether or not you should support your country's war effort?

Of course, in our day, we can get plenty of information through the Intenet from the other side's point of view. But we have been conditioned to think that any thing that comes from the other side is false propoganda.

Actually, I think that the Democrats (with the help of the libral media) do a pretty good job of defending the enemy and spreading their propaganda.

Robin