The "Unjust War" Claims Debunked

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Bible-boy, Oct 21, 2008.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Bible-boy

    Bible-boy
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2002
    Messages:
    4,254
    Likes Received:
    0
    Every so often in a debate here in the Politics Forum one of our liberal friends will throw out the claim that President Bush led the country into an "Unjust War" in Iraq. Recently the poster Crabtownboy stated the following:

    I don't want to debate all the issues raised in that quote. However, I would like to talk about the false claim that the war in Iraq is an "Unjust War."
     
  2. Bible-boy

    Bible-boy
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2002
    Messages:
    4,254
    Likes Received:
    0
    The following material comes from my notes in Dr. Mark Liederbach’s Christian Ethics class (and is used by permission). Let’s look at what the Bible has to say about the ideas of strict Christian Pacifism and Christian Just War Theory.

    Christian pacifists generally hold tightly to the English translation (such as in the KJV) “Thou shalt not kill” (Ex. 20:13, KJV). However, the Hebrew language in that text and other OT passages does not bear out a strict interpretation meaning “no killing” (consider Deut. 7:1-6). Thus, the passage in Ex. 20:13 is better understood and more rightly translated as “You shall not murder” as in the NASB.

    Second, Christian pacifists appeal to Jesus’ example of non-violent resistance. However, Jesus’ specific teachings on the subject indicate elements of both sides (pacifism and Just War).

    a. Matt. 5:9—blessed are the peacemakers
    b. Matt. 5:21-22a—anger and murder
    c. Matt. 5:38-39—turn the other cheek
    d. Matt. 10:34—“I did not come to bring peace… but the sword.”
    e. Matt. 26:50-56—He had the ability to wage war, but did not resort to war.

    Clearly Jesus’ teaching has a very pacifistic streak. However, we must consider the whole counsel of God’s Word on the subject. Consider, Rom. 13:1-7 where we understand that the state is given responsibility to “bear the sword.” This passage is generally understood to mean that God has granted the state the authority to bear the sword for the purpose of capital punishment and to make war (under certain specific circumstances). Finally, we must not forget about the rest of the story found in Rev. 19. Here we clearly see that Jesus wages war.

    The problem with a strict Christian pacifist prohibition against all killing and war is that it conflicts with the fact that God commanded war (the Israelite conquest of the Promised Land and that Jesus will return as a Warrior King and wage war). Thus, a strict Christian pacifist position which claims that all war is simply wrong actually impugns God because He commanded war. The Scriptures depict three types of warfare commanded by God.

    a. Unlimited Holy War (Josh. 6:21-24, 8:24-25, 10:2-40, 11:11-23)
    b. Limited Warfare (Deut. 20:19-20)
    c. Zealous Rebellion (Judges 6:11-7:25, 13:1-16:31)

    Clearly Christians must avoid the Crusader mentality. Problems and characteristics of Crusades:

    a. Crusades treat war as an unconditional effort of good vs. evil—no gray areas
    b. Crusades treat war as a matter of religion
    c. Crusades have little or no place for moral restraint in actions taken against enemies
    d. Because good cannot compromise with evil, and because it requires “total war,” crusade has little or no place for surrender of any kind
    e. Wars of crusade are fought for the purpose of imposing, achieving, or expanding ideals usually conceived on an universal or cosmological scale
    f. Crusades oppose the whole social order and value system of an enemy, not just a few leading individuals, or a few narrow interests. In a war of crusade, no one can be exempted
    g. In crusade, soldiers participate with zeal (i.e. suicide bombers & 9/11 terrorists, etc)
    h. Crusades require no declaration of war. Anyone with zeal for righteousness, anyone who loves God, anyone willing to give their all for the “true ideal” may strike a blow for good against evil without waiting for approval from some human authority.
    i. Crusade tends to extend the state of war into a permanent condition

    So we see that we cannot be outright Christian pacifists and we cannot be Christian Crusaders either. So what option is left? We must look to the idea of Christian Just War Criteria, which includes both jus ad bellum (Latin meaning Law to War) and jus in bello (Latin meaning Justice in War).

    Just War Criteria—Jus ad Bellum (Justify Going to War)
    A. The criteria or requirements ensuring that the reasons for going to war is (are) just:
    1. Must have right or legitimate authority—for Christians, in addition to civil authority, we must ask if the Scriptures bear out what we are about to do?
    2. Just Cause
    3. Right Intention—Trying to ultimately restore peace
    4. Last Resort
    5. Proportionality—Do only what is necessary to obtain the stated goals or ends
    6. Reasonable Chance of Success
    a. Counting the cost before building a tower (Luke 14:31). However, are there times when you are just willing to die for what is right?
    7. Minimizing Negative Effects—Help rebuild when war is over

    B. Moral Traces:
    1. For Just Warriors—Even though I must go to war, I do not want or seek to do so.
    2. For Pacifists—Sanctity of Human Life, Jesus’ turn the other cheek and peacemaker teachings etc.

    C. Why Pacifists and Just Warriors need each other:
    1. Both start from a presumption against violence and killing
    2. Just Warriors need Pacifists to keep them in check—preventing them from becoming unlimited warriors or developing the Crusader mentality
    3. Pacifists need Just Warriors to protect them and their right to be pacifists

    Just War Criteria: Jus in Bello (Just behavior in War)
    A. Legitimate Authority—Same as in jus ad bellum above

    B. Discrimination—Asks the questions, Who may be attacked, how may they be attacked, and when may they be attacked?

    1. Who: Non-combatant Immunity
    a. Prohibition on the direct and intentional killing of non-combatants (Micah 6:8)
    b. Who is to count as a non-combatant?
    c. 4 Classifications and their status
    i. Combatants—uniformed (armed) soldiers
    ii. Non-combatants—civilians (unarmed)
    iii. Ex-combatants—POW, sick or wounded soldiers, medics, Chaplains
    iv. Unprivileged belligerents—Spies, saboteurs, command and control structures etc.
    2. How and When: Rules of Engagement, Double Effect, and Perfidy
    a. Rules of Engagement—Moral principles that bind conduct in war
    b. Collateral Damage and the “Rule of Double Effect”—The attempt to deal with situations in which an agent foresees, but does not intend, an evil effect that will result from pursuing a good effect
    i. The act must itself be either good or indifferent, or at least not forbidden with a view to preventing just the particular effect
    ii. The evil effect cannot be a means to the good, but must be equally immediate or at least must result from the good effect
    iii. The foreseen evil effect must not be intended or approved, merely permitted—for even a good act is vitiated if accompanied by an evil attempt
    iv. There must be a proportionately serious reason for exercising the cause and allowing the evil effect.
    c. Perfidy (treachery)—Dealing forthrightly with the enemy. A code of conduct. Raises the question: “On what basis should one try to limit treachery such as signing a treaty and then blowing it off when the other side disarms?”

    C. Proportionality
    1. The probable benefits of any particular course of action within war must outweigh the probable costs.

    I hope this sheds a bit of light on the subject.
     
  3. Bible-boy

    Bible-boy
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2002
    Messages:
    4,254
    Likes Received:
    0
    Let's look at the criteria for Just War and apply it to the War in Iraq.

    Just War Criteria—Jus ad Bellum (Justify Going to War)
    A. The criteria or requirements ensuring that the reasons for going to war is (are) just:
    1. Must have right or legitimate authority—for Christians, in addition to civil authority, we must ask if the Scriptures bear out what we are about to do?


    It was biblically-moral and right to go to war in Iraq for several reasons. First, Saddam's Iraq broke the 1991 Cease Fire Agreement between the US and Iraq. Second, the Iraqi people were being slaughtered by Saddam's dictatorship and it was right to liberate them from their oppressor. Likewise, the only legitimate authority to determine if the US military can go to war, according to our Constitution, is the US Congress. President Bush sought and received Congressional approval to return to a state of hostilities in Iraq.

    2. Just Cause


    The Just Cause criterion was met by the fact that Saddam's Iraq broke the terms of the 1991 Cease Fire Agreement between the US and Iraq, and by the moral responsibility to stop the slaughter of the Iraqi people by the Saddam Dictatorship.


    3. Right Intention—Trying to ultimately restore peace


    The criterion was met by our moral responsibility to stop the slaughter of the Iraqi people by the Saddam Dictatorship and the stated goal of help to establish a free and democratic Iraq.

    4. Last Resort


    The President sought numerous sanctions against Iraq from the UN. The final UN Resolution called for Iraq to comply with the terms of the 1991 Cease Fire Agreement or face "severe consequences." When it became apparent that the UN could not or would not bring itself to act further President Bush made the case to the US Congress and received their approval to engage the US military.

    5. Proportionality—Do only what is necessary to obtain the stated goals or ends


    The US met this criterion by not waging total warfare on the entire nation and population of Iraq. Our military use precise and highly accurate smart bombs to hit very specific targets. It is our military's stated goal to limit collateral damage. We do not wage war on civilians.

    6. Reasonable Chance of Success

    a. Counting the cost before building a tower (Luke 14:31). However, are there times when you are just willing to die for what is right?

    We counted the cost and sent in a massive invasion force strong enough to ensure a quick and decisive victory in the initial ground war.


    7. Minimizing Negative Effects—Help rebuild when war is over


    In addition to point number five above we have stayed in Iraq to help rebuild, to make sure a peaceful and free Iraqi democratic government can secure its borders and keep its people safe. Admittedly, mistakes in how this phase of the war was conducted have occurred. However, the new plan with the military surge under new military leadership has proven effective and everyday the Iraq police and defense forces are standing up and the US military is pulling back.
     
    #3 Bible-boy, Oct 21, 2008
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 21, 2008
  4. Bible-boy

    Bible-boy
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2002
    Messages:
    4,254
    Likes Received:
    0
    Just thought I'd bump this one up so some of the "Unjust War" crowd could at least attempt to discuss the issue.:wavey:
     
  5. Salty

    Salty
    Expand Collapse
    20,000 Posts Club
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2003
    Messages:
    22,114
    Likes Received:
    220
    Bible Boy, when will you realize that you just should not confuse some people with the facts!
     
  6. Bible-boy

    Bible-boy
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2002
    Messages:
    4,254
    Likes Received:
    0
    I'm tired of seeing/hearing that old "unjust war" montra. I have repeatedly ask the "unjust war" crowd to open a thread on the topic and defend their accusation. However, none of them have ever attempted to do so. Therefore, I took the responsibility and opened this thread in the hopes that we could at least have an honest discussion of the subject. Yet, no replies from the other side to date...:tonofbricks:
     
  7. Dragoon68

    Dragoon68
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2003
    Messages:
    4,511
    Likes Received:
    0
    Good job arguing the point for the just war in Iraq which we also are winning!
     
  8. JustChristian

    JustChristian
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2007
    Messages:
    3,833
    Likes Received:
    0


    There's a lot here so I'll take a few points at a time.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    d. Matt. 10:34—“I did not come to bring peace… but the sword.”

    Let's look at the context.

    Mat 10:34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.
    Mat 10:35 For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.
    Mat 10:36 And a man's foes [shall be] they of his own household.
    Mat 10:37 He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.
    Mat 10:38 And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me.
    Mat 10:39 He that findeth his life shall lose it: and he that loseth his life for my sake shall find it.

    This clearly has nothing to do with war between nations. It has to do with the upheaval that the gospel will bring to the world setting even members of a family against one another.
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Consider, Rom. 13:1-7 where we understand that the state is given responsibility to “bear the sword.”

    Well, we have this statement from Paul against the entirety of Jesus' ministry which emphasizes loving our neighbor.

    Mat 5:44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;

    Each individual must choose the dominant intent of the New Testament and of Christ's message. I believe it to be peace on earth to the extent possible.

    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Thus, the passage in Ex. 20:13 is better understood and more rightly translated as “You shall not murder” as in the NASB.

    Webster-Meridian Dictionary

    1: the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought

    So murder in our context refers to taking part in an unjust war and killing people.

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The problem with a strict Christian pacifist prohibition against all killing and war is that it conflicts with the fact that God commanded war (the Israelite conquest of the Promised Land and that Jesus will return as a Warrior King and wage war). Thus, a strict Christian pacifist position which claims that all war is simply wrong actually impugns God because He commanded war. The Scriptures depict three types of warfare commanded by God.

    a. Unlimited Holy War (Josh. 6:21-24, 8:24-25, 10:2-40, 11:11-23)
    b. Limited Warfare (Deut. 20:19-20)
    c. Zealous Rebellion (Judges 6:11-7:25, 13:1-16:31)

    God did command war but to whom? Only his favored nation Israel. God did not command that the United States invade Iraq to my knowledge. As far as the second part goes, I believe that the Second Coming of Jesus Christ in all His glory cannot be compared to ANY human event. To compare it to petty wars is blasphemy.

    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    I do believe that there are just wars. In my view, WWII was a just war. However, Viet Nam and the invasion of Iraq were not just wars. Probably I'd consider GHW Bush's attack on Iraq after their invasion of Kuwait and the war in Bosnia which stopped a genecide as just wars as well. If we had done anything to stop the tribal massacre in Dhafur I would have considered that justified as well.

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Enough for now. I'll wait for some feedback before continuing.
     
  9. Bible-boy

    Bible-boy
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2002
    Messages:
    4,254
    Likes Received:
    0
    You are correct about the context, but you stopped typing too soon with respect to your second sentance. I assume you did so in order to stay within the confines of your presupposition on the issue. Your second statement should have read something to the effect of:
    (according to your own words).
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Well as a biblical inerrantist I do not hold to the suggested implication you appear to be making here. The Scriptures do not contradict themselves ever. Therefore, when one thinks one has found an "apparent contradiction" the problem rests not with the text of the Scripture but rather with our interpretation of the Scripture that led us to the "apparent condradiction." Thus, we must re-examine the interpretation and the presuppositions that led us to this error in thinking.

    Here your error arises from the fact that you are attempting to take the teaching of Jesus (Matt 5), spoken to individual followers of Christ, and apply it to national/state governments (which may or may not be followers of Christ) that Paul was speaking about.

    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Nice try. However, we are not talking about the dictionary definition of modern English words here. We are talking about the definition and meaning of Ancient biblical Hebrew. Likewise, you have just engaged in circular reasoning (a formal fallacy). You are ultimately attempting to prove that the war in Iraq is an "unjust war" by using your own "contextual" definition of a modern English word--murder to define what constitutes an "unjust war." Sorry you can't there from here.:tonofbricks:

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    You are completely missing the point. The point is you cannot claim that all war is unjust because to do so impugns God. God commanded war (see the references given), when the angels rebelled in heaven God waged war and defeated them (Rev. 12:7-9), and when Christ returns He will wage war (Rev. 19:11-21). In short God commanded war in the OT, He waged war in Heaven, and He will wage war on earth in the future. You are free to hold your stated belief and use it to support your presuppositions regarding pacificism and just warfare. However, the whole counsel of the Bible regarding war speaks against you.
     
  10. Doubting Thomas

    Doubting Thomas
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2003
    Messages:
    2,615
    Likes Received:
    6
    It's funny how in the 1980s, when the US goverment knew how bad Saddam was, we had no problem providing intelligence and such to him in his war with Iran (which had become our enemy as a result of a previous US intervention in that country when the CIA overthrew their elected president and installed the Shah in 1953). It wasn't until Hussein invaded Kuwait and was perceived as a threat to our oil interests, that the US GOVT put him in it's cross hairs. I'm sure all the noble reasons you listed were the real reasons we went to war with Iraq...not! (Particularly after our sanctions of the past decade had contributed to the deaths of half a million Iraqis.) Those were just propanda the US Govt employed to have a firm beachhead in the middle east.

    If our Govt was really concerned about these humanitarian causes, why did we not intervene in Darfur or Rwanda when genocide was taking place? And why has our Govt propped up brutal dictators in Latin American, Southeast Asia, and Africa (among other places) through the years? The truth is our foreign policy decisions and military interventions have often been less than noble and humane, despite the lofty rhetoric our Govt applies to its acts to cover up its real motives. Bringing examples, then, of God's commands in the OT to Israel regarding war in order to justify US neo-imperialism is truly problematic to say the least.
     
  11. Salty

    Salty
    Expand Collapse
    20,000 Posts Club
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2003
    Messages:
    22,114
    Likes Received:
    220
    DT, it sounds like you are saying we should have invaded more countries?
     
  12. JustChristian

    JustChristian
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2007
    Messages:
    3,833
    Likes Received:
    0
    I don't see where you came up with this. It doesn't say anything in this passage of scripture about extending this to war between nations. Maybe you have another example in the New Testament which supports this but it's clearly not here. This scripture is talking about the effect an individual's faith will have on their relationships. Nothing about war.
     
  13. Bible-boy

    Bible-boy
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2002
    Messages:
    4,254
    Likes Received:
    0
    Jesus said that He did not come to bring peace; but rather, the sword. The sword here, as in Rom. 13, is used as a metaphor for war. Jesus made it clear that because of Him and His gospel even one's closest relations could become one's enemies. Now if one's closest relations could become one's enemies what do you think this means when you apply this same teaching to people of other tribes, tongues, and nations? You seriously don't expect me to believe that my closest relations could become my enemies but that people that are completely different from me and who follow one of the world's false religions will be my best friends. Let's at least show a bit of intellectual honesty here.

    Also you are currently arguing against the points of the notes that were setting up the fact that the idea of Just War is acceptable and biblical as opposed to a strict Christian pacificism (no war for any reason). However, you already admitted that you do believe that Just War is acceptable under certain circumstances. So either we agree that there are Just Wars or we disagree on that point, which is it?

    For the sake of argument I am going to take you at your word and assume that you do believe in Just War Theory. So now let's talk specifically about the War in Iraq:

    Let's look at the criteria for Just War and apply it to the War in Iraq.

    Just War Criteria—Jus ad Bellum (Justify Going to War)
    A. The criteria or requirements ensuring that the reasons for going to war is (are) just:
    1. Must have right or legitimate authority—for Christians, in addition to civil authority, we must ask if the Scriptures bear out what we are about to do?

    It was biblically-moral and right to go to war in Iraq for several reasons. First, Saddam's Iraq broke the 1991 Cease Fire Agreement between the US and Iraq. Second, the Iraqi people were being slaughtered by Saddam's dictatorship and it was right to liberate them from their oppressor. Likewise, the only legitimate authority to determine if the US military can go to war, according to our Constitution, is the US Congress. President Bush sought and received Congressional approval to return to a state of hostilities in Iraq.

    2. Just Cause

    The Just Cause criterion was met by the fact that Saddam's Iraq broke the terms of the 1991 Cease Fire Agreement between the US and Iraq, and by the moral responsibility to stop the slaughter of the Iraqi people by the Saddam Dictatorship.

    3. Right Intention—Trying to ultimately restore peace

    The criterion was met by our moral responsibility to stop the slaughter of the Iraqi people by the Saddam Dictatorship and the stated goal of help to establish a free and democratic Iraq.

    4. Last Resort

    The President sought numerous sanctions against Iraq from the UN. The final UN Resolution called for Iraq to comply with the terms of the 1991 Cease Fire Agreement or face "severe consequences." When it became apparent that the UN could not or would not bring itself to act further President Bush made the case to the US Congress and received their approval to engage the US military.

    5. Proportionality—Do only what is necessary to obtain the stated goals or ends

    The US met this criterion by not waging total warfare on the entire nation and population of Iraq. Our military use precise and highly accurate smart bombs to hit very specific targets. It is our military's stated goal to limit collateral damage. We do not wage war on civilians.

    6. Reasonable Chance of Success
    a. Counting the cost before building a tower (Luke 14:31). However, are there times when you are just willing to die for what is right?

    We counted the cost and sent in a massive invasion force strong enough to ensure a quick and decisive victory in the initial ground war.

    7. Minimizing Negative Effects—Help rebuild when war is over

    In addition to point number five above we have stayed in Iraq to help rebuild, to make sure a peaceful and free Iraqi democratic government can secure its borders and keep its people safe. Admittedly, mistakes in how this phase of the war was conducted have occurred. However, the new plan with the military surge under new military leadership has proven effective and everyday the Iraq police and defense forces are standing up and the US military is pulling back.
     
    #13 Bible-boy, Oct 23, 2008
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 23, 2008
  14. Bible-boy

    Bible-boy
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2002
    Messages:
    4,254
    Likes Received:
    0
    Your whole argument here makes no sense. Just because former administrations failed to do the right thing does not mean that it is right to continue to do the wrong thing. Two wrongs never make a right. Why do you have a problem with doing the right thing now (or starting to do the right thing in 2003 in Iraq). The same applies to the situations in other countries. Just because we failed to do what is right in Sudan does that mean that we should continue to do the wrong thing in Iraq and ignore the 1991 Cease Fire Agreement and the slaughter of the people by Saddam? Remember two wrongs never make a right. No one here is attempting to argue that our government and its policies are 100% correct 100% of the time, which is not the point of this discussion either.
     
    #14 Bible-boy, Oct 23, 2008
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 23, 2008
  15. JustChristian

    JustChristian
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2007
    Messages:
    3,833
    Likes Received:
    0

    Intellectual honesty? You are simply stretching the Bible to support your political objectives. Jesus is a PERSONAL Savior. He didn't come to save nations, however much you might talk about a "Christian America." He came to save individuals. This scripture is talking about the trials individuals will go through if they accept Him as their Lord and Savior. It's not talking about "Christian War." There is no such thing. Jesus Christ is the Prince of Peace not your god of war.
     
  16. poncho

    poncho
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2004
    Messages:
    19,657
    Likes Received:
    128
    It does for me. Basically what you're saying is anybody who disagrees with you and George Bush is a liberal pacifist acting against Jesus teachings. This is kind of an underhanded debate technique. You're mixing terms here to paint the "great leader's" opposition as a bunch of cowering leftist fraidy cats. Don't worry your bias isn't showing or anything.:rolleyes:

    Non-violence is not pacifism. Jesus preached non violence.

    What was Jesus teaching here? Pacifism? Hogwash! This is non violence at it's finest. The act of turning the other cheek was more likely as not to get you either beaten or killed or both. There was nothing even remotely "submissive" or "pacifist" about this action.

    Turning the other cheek was meant to...

    1.) Let the person striking you know that he may beat you he may even kill you but you will not except the idea that you are his inferior. You're letting this person know that you consider yourself his equal. He may be you're master by law or by conquest but he is not a superior being. (Being stricken on your right cheek was an insult and meant to re enforce the idea of your inferiority to the person striking you and "his" society in general.)

    2.) To unmask those in power over you and show them as they really are by forcing them into action before they are prepared. How is it Ghandi understood Jesus teaching of non violence and used His teaching to have a huge impact on the world around him yet Christians are still basically clueless and feel powerless?

    Hint, it's today's preachers and teachers who wrongly teach Jesus was teaching pacifism.

    Those who teach that Jesus was preaching pacifism with this verse have to ignore the historical context in which His words were spoken in order to arrive at such a conclusion. What did Jesus say when He was struck in the face?

    "If I have said something wrong, confirm what is wrong. But if I spoke correctly, why strike me?" (John 18:19-23)

    He didn't turn the other cheek.

    More later. I'm out of time tonight.
     
    #16 poncho, Oct 23, 2008
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 23, 2008
  17. Bible-boy

    Bible-boy
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2002
    Messages:
    4,254
    Likes Received:
    0
    The Scripture does not completely agree with you on any of these points. According to John 3:16 Jesus came to save the Cosmos (study the Greek). That is the entire created order. Yes, individuals are part of the created order; however, they are not the created order in total. The points you are currently arguing are speaking to the issue of whether or not there is such a thing as Just War according to the Bible, or if staunch Christian Pacificism is the only acceptable biblical position. God commanded war in the OT, He waged war in Heaven, and He will wage war on earth in the future. So yes Jesus Christ in His earthly incarnation was/is the Prince of Peace. However, He will return to this earth one day as a Warrior King ruling with a rod of iron as He treads the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God (Rev. 19:15). You can't pin Him into a nice neat little box that fits only your presupposition. Either you believe the whole counsel of the Word of God or you do not.

    Like I said before, the points you are currently arguing address whether or not Just War is a valid biblical position. However, you have already admitted that you do believe that Just War is posible under certain circumstances. So which is it?

    Finally, I never said anything about "Christian War." I am speaking of Just War theory based on the teachings of Scripture regarding war.
     
  18. Bible-boy

    Bible-boy
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2002
    Messages:
    4,254
    Likes Received:
    0
    I hate to burst your bubble but those notes were written long before the war in Iraq. They are from a Christian Ethics class at Seminary and are dealing with the ethical positions of Christian Pacifism and Just War Theory. President Bush does not figure into that age old discussion. Get a grip...
     
    #18 Bible-boy, Oct 23, 2008
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 23, 2008
  19. Doubting Thomas

    Doubting Thomas
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2003
    Messages:
    2,615
    Likes Received:
    6
    Because it's altogether debatible that our GOVT did the "right thing" when invading Iraq in 2003. First we were told we went because of the WMDs--which of course turned out to be a lie. Then we were told, after the fact, various things such as "we're setting up a democratic state in the Middle East". (Well, the people have spoken, and 3/4 of the Iraqis want us out of there). Now we're told that we have to stay the course to make sure Iran (the next bogeyman) doesn't exert undue influence in Iraq. Well, guess what? Maliki's government and Iran's are on pretty good terms already. Never mind the RESULT of the war is that 50 to 500 thousand people have lost their lives and 4-5 million have been displaced--not to mention over 4000 of our own soldiers who died in this unnecessary war against a nation which was no threat to us (AND which had nothing to do with "9-11"). Also, never mind the impracticality of 'intervening' (ie doing the "right thing") in every troublesome spot in the world (we're not the world's policemen)--we only do so when the interests of our power elite is at stake (the noble rhetoric is applied for propaganda purposes for the masses).

    It's easy for the US GOVT to cover up it's real motives for invading Iraq with lies and lofty sounding rhetoric, given that we have become a people with short historical memories and who subsist on the short sound bites delivered by the GOVT through the media. That gives many of us comfort that we're actually "doing the right thing" when our GOVT's intentions are altogether different than advertised in the media. Meanwhile the number of Al-Queda recruits grows tremendously...
     
  20. Bible-boy

    Bible-boy
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2002
    Messages:
    4,254
    Likes Received:
    0
    The purpose of this thread is to debate Just War Theory and to apply the principals of that theory to the War in Iraq. So far nothing you have said addresses the principals of Just War Theory with respect to the War in Iraq. You have talked about the War in Iraq and pointed out some of the opposition's talking points and some CT ideas. The closest you have come to addressing a point of Just War Theory is to make an inaccurate assertion that the first reason we were given to justify going to war in Iraq was Iraq's WMDs. However, that is not correct. The first reason was the fact that Saddam's Iraq broke the 1991 Cease Fire Agreement between the US and Iraq. That is why President Bush asked the UN repeatedly for sanctions and stronger resolutions against Iraq.

    Now later in the process of making his case the President shifted his focus away from the strong position with respect to Iraq's failure to comply with the terms of the 1991 Cease Fire Agreement and began to focus on weaker position of Iraq's possession of WMDs. I have repeatedly said his switch in focus was a bad move both politically and philosophically. However, Iraq's possession of WMDs, and its failure to demonstrate that it conclusively no longer had any WMDs were two of the terms of the 1991 Cease Fire Agreement which it failed to uphold. So the WMD question is connected to the issue 1991 Cease Fire Agreement.

    Anyway, in order to proceed with an orderly discussion of Just War Theory and its application to the War in Iraq please respond to the statements I made in my post number 13 above that outlines the specific points of Just War Theory and how the US government met each of those requirements for conducting a Just War in Iraq.
     
    #20 Bible-boy, Oct 24, 2008
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 24, 2008
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

Loading...