- This topic has 6 voices and 40 replies.
-
Posts
-
I think the word “Just” refers to the reasons for going to war, rather than the war itself, and JWT seems to take into account the idea of “necessity”. Obviously, the killing of innocent civilians can never be considered “just” in the scheme of things. Whether it is morally permissible, however, is a different matter. At the same time, issues of moral permissiveness can still be seen as objectively evil. A bomber is taking out an aggressor's military installation in a city, and a bomb accidentally lands outside the intended zone and an innocent civilian is killed in the process. While the death of the civilian is in no way "good" or "just", it is not necessarily morally blameworthy. See the Principle of Double Effect.The bottom line is that getting into war is not something that nations should take lightly, and when push comes to shove, there needs to be some consistent, ethical framework by which decisions are made.
I have slowly shifted toward the pacifist's position that there is no just cause for going to war (especially from the point of view of Jesus). Jesus would prefer us to surrender to our enemies and be patient until the He returns to put our enemies under our feet. Having said that, I totally understand why going to war can be a necessity. To save those we love and the way of life we hold dear, is always a “rational” reason to go to war. But as a Christian, there is nothing in this current world that trumps God's word to love our enemies and consider no flesh and blood an enemy at all. I know this is a hard thing to follow, but even when men win wars, they have already lost a portion of their souls in the victory. When a person kills their fellow man, he kills a portion of himself in the deed. I just long for the day when man makes war no more.
I have slowly shifted toward the pacifist's position that there is no just cause for going to war (especially from the point of view of Jesus). Jesus would prefer us to surrender to our enemies and be patient until the He returns to put our enemies under our feet. Having said that, I totally understand why going to war can be a necessity. To save those we love and the way of life we hold dear, is always a "rational" reason to go to war. But as a Christian, there is nothing in this current world that trumps God's word to love our enemies and consider no flesh and blood an enemy at all. I know this is a hard thing to follow, but even when men win wars, they have already lost a portion of their souls in the victory. When a person kills their fellow man, he kills a portion of himself in the deed. I just long for the day when man makes war no more.
I guess I wasn't that far off when I asked if it was you or Fit2betied talking! It does seem like you have changed based on what you have said before. However, are you really a pacifist? A pacifist would seemingly allow an enemy into one's village to pillage and rape and kill one's family without raising an arm (as far as I understand). I think this is different than another position which simply requires a higher set of requirements before one will resort to violence. I think one could legitimately have disagreed with the U.S.'s decision to go to war without being a pacifist.
I think ideally Fit2BThaied is correct. Realistically, though, he is not. If a man chooses to be a pacifist, he is morally and spiritually correct to do so, but if he decides to fight to save the lives of others, he will not be condemned by God for doing so. It is a personal choice. Killing to save others is not a sin and I know God would understand the circumstances. However, we're talking about individual situations and not full scale war. Perhaps the two have different criteria?
I understand that JWT is more concerned with the reason fro war than the waging of it. I don't reject it entirely, I think JWT is a useful guide. I just think that ultimately the arbiter of why nations go to war and how they wage said war is perceived rational self-interest and not abstract metaphysics.While I admire pacifists for their adherence to their principles. I call them targets. I also think that pacifists are the most despicable of people as they will gladly enjoy the fruits provided by others defending them yet high-mindedly refuse to participate in that defense themselves. I am not talking about what God commands or does not command I am talking about what reality and the circumstances of life require. If all Christians are pacifists then our enemies will quickly overrun us and God's word can no longer be spread. Sorry, I just don't think God wants us to passively submit to violence done against us. If you think about it in some ways the Christian pacifists are just as bad as the Pharisees who condemned Christ because they are so dogmatic. Much as Jesus told us that God's laws are not absolutes and that Gentiles can also be christian and the Pharisees condemned him for that. Why would he want his commandment to love our neighbor to be absolute to the point that we even allow our neighbor to d us harm? It makes no sense and if there is one thing I am convinced of it is that Jesus had common sense.
Excluding non-sentient infants, there are no “innocent” casualties. I prefer the term non-combatants. As a 9-13 year old during WWII, I was not innocent. None of the kids were. We did all we could to help the war effort, and if it lasted longer, we would have been future soldiers. To fight a war successfully, one must not worry about collateral damage and have the guts to win. Apologize after from strenth, not grovel from weakness. Worry about nation building after the war. But have a grand strategy, to quote Liddell Hart. We truly have become a wussified nation in many ways.The outcome of a war can by judged by this quotation, the origin of which I forget and paraphrase: A successful war produces a better peace than the one that preceded it.
I understand that JWT is more concerned with the reason fro war than the waging of it. I don't reject it entirely, I think JWT is a useful guide. I just think that ultimately the arbiter of why nations go to war and how they wage said war is perceived rational self-interest and not abstract metaphysics.While I admire pacifists for their adherence to their principles. I call them targets. I also think that pacifists are the most despicable of people as they will gladly enjoy the fruits provided by others defending them yet high-mindedly refuse to participate in that defense themselves. I am not talking about what God commands or does not command I am talking about what reality and the circumstances of life require. If all Christians are pacifists then our enemies will quickly overrun us and God's word can no longer be spread. Sorry, I just don't think God wants us to passively submit to violence done against us. If you think about it in some ways the Christian pacifists are just as bad as the Pharisees who condemned Christ because they are so dogmatic. Much as Jesus told us that God's laws are not absolutes and that Gentiles can also be christian and the Pharisees condemned him for that. Why would he want his commandment to love our neighbor to be absolute to the point that we even allow our neighbor to d us harm? It makes no sense and if there is one thing I am convinced of it is that Jesus had common sense.
So are you saying God can't spread His word if Christians don't go to war? How does that work? I know it works for the Muslims, but I don't think Christianity works in quite the same way.
I know what Scout is saying about Jesus and God's laws not always being absolutes. Think about the Sabbath laws where Jesus said the Sabbath was made for man; not man for the Sabbath. In other words, the law isn't so absolute that it is the end all be all in God's salvation plan. Anyway back to the debate…..
Yes, I do too. But I was referring to the rest of what scout said about loving your neighbors which IS absolute (even if that means harm). If that isn't an absolute, then Jesus didn't have to die.
The outcome of a war can by judged by this quotation, the origin of which I forget and paraphrase: A successful war produces a better peace than the one that preceded it.
That is one interesting way of considering which of the World Wars was more successful.
That is one interesting way of considering which of the World Wars was more successful.
World War II was a continuation of World War I. There was just a lull between the action.
I'm not quite sure I follow you Ski.
Sinners are enemies of God. God loved us enought to die for us which was the ultimate act of loving your enemy, IMO
