The "Unjust War" Claims Debunked

This isn't that complicated. It can be resolved by answering a few simple questions. Did Jesus come to bring peace to mankind? Did He teach love thy neighbor? Did He tell us to turn the other cheek? Did He Himself ever use violence to achieve His objective? Didn't He tell us that that objective was not to establish a worldly kingdom but rather a heavenly one? Weren't the disciples rebuked when they wanted to use violence?

It's very clear to me that Jesus was just what the prophet said He would be, the Prince of peace. Anyone who attempts to use His message to support war distorts the message and is not preaching the true gospel.

These are things I learned as a child in Sunday School and I've never seen any reason to reject them. You can if you wish.

 

Mt 10;34
Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.

 

Just war theory is just that, a theory. Show me some Biblical support for it. I'll stick with Jesus is the Prince of peace who commands us to love our neighbor. I haven't seen you rebut that statement.

 

People have refuted you, but as you most always do, you ignore them.

 

I'm saying it's difficult to support just war Biblically. It's a theory that men have used to try to justify war. One thing I do believe, however, is that there are Christian concerns and separate from those there are practical concerns relating to how a nation acts. Ideally, the nation should be guided by Christian people but that's not the case very often.

There's no such thing as a Christian nation. There are nations made up of people who have various degrees of faith, some Christian some not. That describes the United States. Nations tend to act in their own self interest unless there are controlled by leaders who don't care about the nation's interests or who have their own agenda.

How does this relate to just war theory? I think the idea of a just war falls in between the idea of personal Christian responsibility and nationalistic feelings about one's country. The country is attacked. We must defend the country by killing the invaders. On a personal level, if my house is invaded by a robber I'd much rather use a stun gun or my fists than a lethal weapon. That's a personal choice. In war personal choices are necessarily overridden by the will of the military. If Sarge tells you to take out a machine gun nest you will do that probably by tossing a hand grenade in there and killing the enemy. Otherwise you'll be court marshaled.

When you go to war you necessarily subordinate personal morality to the will of the nation and specifically its military. The personal choice between fists/stun gun versus semi-automatic doesn't exist. Therefore the argument must be that the end justifies the means and you have to be very sure that the war is a just one.

The thing is personally we do have choices. I've often thought about what wars would have justified the loss of say 60 years of my life. As a Christian and a good citizen a lot would be lost both to me and the world if I made that choice. How many poor people or sick people could I have helped in 60 years? How many could I have shared the gospel with? How many fulfilling relationships would have never existed?

The only war that I almost had to make this decision about was Viet Nam. After graduating from college I became 1A and appeared for my pre-induction physical. To make a very long story short, after 5 physicals the army decided that my sports related shoulder injury was disqualifying. If it had happened otherwise would I have decided that for me personally that dying in Viet Nam was God's will for my life? The answer is no. I would have made the same decision about the current war in Iraq. World War II, however, would have been a different story. I probably would have enlisted hopefully getting the chance to use my engineering talents in the effort.

Can a country afford to let people make these kinds of decisions. No. They have to punish people who don't support the current war. That's OK. These nation does what it has to do and I do what I have to do. I serve a higher power.

So, based on my own life experience I must define a just war in a very personal way. What's just for one person may not be just for another. I think a great analogy for this concept is the movie "It's a Wonderful Life." Jimmie Stewart got a rare opportunity to see what the world would have been like if he had never been born.

So, you see you can't refute my posts because we might very well be operating on different sets of principles. We might have different views of what's valuable in our lives. I love my country but Jesus Christ is my Lord and I choose to follow Him.

 

Which is how libs justify all their unscriptural ideologies.

 

Double post.

 

----------

 

No, I just said that I really don't believe that war can be justified under the second covenant. This is what I said initially:

I'm saying it's difficult to support just war Biblically. It's a theory that men have used to try to justify war.

 

Points 1-4 were met. Point 5, from a Biblical standpoint, not sure this is the standard. Remember one of the reasons King Saul lost his office. God told him to take get rid of everything. He substituted his reasoning and kept the king alive and some choice livestock. As Samuel said, "What are those animal noises I hear." It cost Saul his office and life. The point is, if a nation is going to meet points 1-4 and go to war, then you fight to win, swiftly and decisively. A nation does not linger and linger due to inaction or bad leadership. It drains a nation and comes at a high price in lives and money. We should have learned that 40 years ago.

Point 6 is the fact that no one in a position of leadership had an exit strategy. Walking on an aircraft carrer and proclaiming mission accomplished is not winning a war, especially when you are there 5 years later.

Point 7 would have been done by now if we had followed 5 and 6.

 

Whatever...if they don't figure in the historical context in which Jesus was speaking they're at the least inaccurate and at the most a bogus deception. In this case I'd say they're somewhere in between.

You can't just take what Jesus said to people two thousand years ago and apply it directly to today. We don't have the same mindset or customs. We don't live under Roman rule or Mosaic law.

What you're doing here is dishonest imho. You are saying in effect that anyone who disagrees with you and the great leader are "pacifists". I say that's bunkum. There are no pacifists on Baptist Board. There may be a few liberals and anti interventionists alright but being a liberal doesn't automatically make one a pacifist or anti war. To my knowledge there are no anti war people here at all. Your argument is basically the same one Hermman Goering and the Nazis used. Except that you have to keep pretending you're surrounded by evil "pacifists who are putting the country in greater danger". You have to pretend because there are none around you at all.

I repeat. There are no anti war pacifists here.

So there you have it. You a Christian are dutifully repeating Nazi propaganda without giving it a second thought and I should be the one getting a grip?? Even Hitler used the "just war theory" (and Romans 13) as a cover and justification when he was lying through his teeth to the German people.

Beyond that you're looking at the intervention in Iraq as a war. Baloney. Iraq is one battle in a larger conflict. Claiming Iraq is a "war" is not only inaccurate it's subturfuge. There's alot more going on than the mass media is telling you about. I suggest you turn off your propaganda box and actually read what the policy planners have written. Like Brzezinski...Obama's foreign policy adviser. Want to know how he's "advising" Obama? Read his books! Instead of just taking Obama's speech writers word for it. Whats so hard to understand about that?

Unjust war? No! Unjust foreign policy? Yes! Why is it unjust? Because the whole thing is based on lies and decption. How do I know this? Because I've listened to what they say in front of the cameras and compared it to what they've written in their own books and papers behind the scenes. I haven't allowed myself to get all caught up in "war collectivism" and all the faux flag waving patriotic ferver put out by the "international community" the military industrial complex and it's talking head propagandists in the corporate controlled press.

Maybe you should do the same. Parsing mainstream corporate propaganda instead of looking at all the evidence isn't discernment it's self deception. Jesus gave you the ability to reason. I suggest you put it to use once in awhile otherwise you're going to keep living in your little bubble of deception believing whatever the elite want to you to believe. Seek first the truth. And Burst your own bubble. I always thought we as Christians were to spend what little time we have here "debunking" the lies and illusions of the elite and leading people to Christ not perpetuating their lies and distortions by avoiding the whole truth. A little truth here and a little truth there isn't the same as the whole truth.

Oh yeah. HAIL VICTORY! or is it WELFARE TRIUMPHS! now?

 

One pertinent point is to understand what the real position of the Christian churches in America was as stated by their leadership.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Statements by Christian Church Leaders Regarding War against Iraq

The only major U.S. denominational leader to come out in favor of a unilateral pre-emptive strike against Iraq is the Southern Baptist leader Rev. Richard Land of Nashville, Tennessee. Most other Christian leaders in the U.S.A. and abroad are against any preemptive strike. A sample of statements follows.

Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (August 30, 2002)

The Rev. Mark S. Hanson, Presiding Bishop, made the following remarks:
"While we are fully aware of the potential threat posed by the government of Iraq and its leader, I believe it is wrong for the United State to overthrow the regime of Saddam Hussein with military action. Morally, I oppose it because I know a war with Iraq will have great consequences for the people of Iraq, who have already suffered through years of war and economic sanctions. I do not believe such a war can be justified under the historic principles of ‘just war.’"
For the full text see www.elca.org/bishop/iraq.html.

United Methodists (August 30, 2002)

General Secretary Jim Winkler of the United Methodist Church General Board of Church and Society has said:
"The Bush administration has declared its intent to launch a war against Iraq, ignoring the advice of its allies, many members of Congress, key experts, and millions of U.S. citizens. With unprecedented disregard for democratic ideals and with an astonishing lack of evidence justifying such a pre-emptive attack, the President has all but given the order to fire.

I ask United Methodists to oppose this reckless measure and urge the President to immediately pursue other means to resolve the threat posed by Iraq.
United Methodists have a particular duty to speak out against an unprovoked attack. President Bush and Vice-President Cheney are members of our denomination. Our silence now could be interpreted as tacit approval of war. Christ came to break old cycles of revenge and violence. Too often, we have said we worship and follow Jesus but have failed to change our ways. Jesus proved on the cross the failure of state-sponsored revenge. It is inconceivable that Jesus Christ, our Lord and Savior and the Prince of Peace, would support this proposed attack."
For full text see www.umc-gbcs.org/gbpr170.htm.

The Episcopal Church, USA (September 6, 2002)

A statement by The Most Rev. Frank T. Griswold, Presiding Bishop and Primate, included the following:

"The problem of Iraq admits no easy solution. However, through diplomatic and multilateral initiatives, we can both serve our common interests and seek to contain the national security threats posed by Saddam Hussein’s rule of Iraq. Our great nation now has the opportunity to express leadership in the world by forging a foreign policy that seeks to reconcile and heal the world’s divisions.
I believe it is becoming ever more clear that this is the way to proceed, rather than choosing a course that will immediately endanger the Iraqi civilian population and our own United States Forces, that will alienate many of our closest allies, and destabilize the Middle East. We will all be better served to see our national energies and resources expended in resolving the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, such that Israel finds security and peace with its neighbors and Palestinians achieve statehood."
For full text see: www.stnm.org/news/066.html.

National Council of Churches U.S.A. (September 12, 2002)

Forty-eight heads of American Protestant and Orthodox churches and organizations and Roman Catholic religious orders announced opposition to U.S. military action against Iraq in Washington, DC on September 12. General Secretary Bob Edgar of the National Council and former six-term member of the U.S. Congress stated:

"We do not need to march down the path to Armageddon. Pre-emptive military action now being contemplated by the Administration cannot be morally justified. Among other consequences, consider that a pre-emptive strike by the U.S. presents to the world a model of aggression that may encourage other nations to attack neighboring countries that threaten them."

Southern Baptists (September 13, 2002)

A top Southern Baptist Convention official says President Bush would be justified in launching a pre-emptive military strike against Iraq under terms of the classical Christian "just war" theory.
Richard Land, president of the Southern Baptist Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, said such an attack would be justified because Saddam Hussein is developing nuclear weapons "at breakneck speed," has broken all the agreements that were a condition of the cease-fire after the 1991 Gulf War, attempted to assassinate the first President George Bush, and that there is "a direct line" from Iraq to the Sept. 11 terrorists.

"If you are looking for just cause, we have already passed that threshold," Land said.
For the full article, see www.ucc.org/news/b091302.htm#2.

United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (September 13, 2002)

Bishop Wilton D. Gregory, President of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, wrote a letter to President Bush on September 13, 2002.
"Given the precedents and risks involved, we find it difficult to justify extending the war on terrorism to Iraq, absent clear and adequate evidence of Iraqi involvement in the attacks of September 11th or of an imminent attack of a grave nature.

We conclude, based on the facts that are known to us, that a preemptive, unilateral use of force is difficult to justify at this time. We fear that resort to force, under these circumstances, would not meet the strict conditions in Catholic teaching for overriding the strong presumption against the use of military force. Of particular concern are the traditional just war criteria of just cause, right authority, probability of success, proportionality and noncombatant immunity.
We respectfully urge you to step back from the brink of war."
Full text is available from www.usccb.org/sdwp/international/bush902.htm.

The World Council of Churches (September 19, 2002)

The following is from a WCC press release on the above date.
The new director of the World Council of Churches (WCC) Commission of the Churches on International Affairs, Peter Weiderud, yesterday sent messages to Iraqi president Saddam Hussein and to the diplomatic missions of the US, UK, France, Russia and China.

[In its message] the WCC Central Committee calls on the Iraqi government "to respect the resolutions of the UN Security Council, including demands that it destroy all weapons of mass destruction and related research and production facilities, to cooperate fully with UN inspectors deployed to oversee compliance, and to guarantee full respect of the civil and political, economic, social and cultural human rights for all its citizens".

Weiderud's letter to the US, UK, French, Russian and Chinese diplomatic missions…draws attention to its call to the "international community to uphold the international rule of law, to resist pressures to join in preemptive military strikes against a sovereign state under the pretext of the 'war on terrorism', and to strengthen their commitment to obtain respect for UN Security Council resolutions on Iraq by non-military means."

Statement of 100 U.S. Christian Ethicists (September 23, 2002)

"As Christian ethicists, we share a common moral presumption against a pre-emptive war on Iraq by the United States."

The Christian ethicists who signed the above statement come from a range of institutions and include scholars with pacifist and just war perspectives.
The statement can be found in The Chronicle of Higher Education on September 23, 2002.

 

Pre emptive warfare throws the idea of being innocent until proven guilty out the window. So what right? It's only a long standing principle that this country was founded on.

What we have now is just the opposite. Guilty until proven innocent with no chance of proving innocence. Due process? Who needs it? Bible Boy might as well "debunk" every principle this country was founded on using the "Goering factor" if he's going to "debunk' this one with it.

Truth and proof? We don't need no steenking truth and proof...we have mainstream corporate generated consensus! That's close enough.

 

It wasn't in my last post but the other major Baptist all came out against the war as well. So did the Baptist World Alliance and the World Council of Churches.


Leaders Issue 'A Call to Stop the Rush to War'
American Baptist News Service (9/11/02)--American Baptist Churches USA General Secretary A. Roy Medley and 36 other international Christian leaders have issued a statement urging "diplomatic means in active cooperation with the United Nations" as an alternative to "the apparent rush to war" with Iraq.


The leaders, from U.S., Canadian and British churches, issued their statement, "A Call to Stop the Rush to War," at the recent Central Committee meeting of the World Council of Churches in Geneva. The text follows:

"As representatives and participants from the United States, British and Canadian churches meeting at the Central Committee of the World Council of Churches, we have heard and share the concern of those of other nations about the apparent drift towards military confrontation in Iraq.

"As the calls for military action to remove Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq have grown louder, we call for restraint. We are concerned about the situation in Iraq. We believe that the Iraqi government has a duty to stop its internal repression, to end its threats to peace, to abandon its efforts to develop weapons of mass destruction, and to respect the legitimate role of the United Nations in ensuring that it does so. But we also believe that the international community is weakened and respect for law undermined when national governments act individually rather than collectively to secure these goals. We have watched with growing alarm as the United States government has become increasingly unilateral in its approach to foreign affairs, and has failed to heed the advice and counsel of friends and allies.

"Although both the U.S. and U.K. governments have claimed that they have evidence that Saddam Hussein is building up weapons of mass destruction, they have so far refused to make that evidence public. This undermines democratic government by depriving the U.S. Congress and the U.K. Parliament of the ability to make a considered judgment regarding the justification for war. Furthermore, the United Nations Charter does not permit states to engage in pre-emptive war. We therefore urge our governments to pursue this matter through the United Nations Security Council: In particular, we urge that Saddam Hussein's offer to re-admit U.N. Weapons Inspectors be accepted.

"Our knowledge of and links with church partners in the Middle East and our unity in Christ with Christians there make us very sensitive to the destabilizing potential of a war against Iraq for the whole region. There is no support among the Arab nations for such a war and very little support in Europe and elsewhere. Christian-Muslim relations would be further harmed by such a war, and the possibility of such an action triggering direct military confrontation in Israel cannot be ignored. Further, the forces of extremism and terrorism would be strengthened rather than diminished.

"As Christians, we are concerned by the likely human costs of war with Iraq, particularly for civilians. We are unconvinced that the gain for humanity would be proportionate to the loss. Neither are we convinced that it has been publicly demonstrated that all reasonable alternative means of containing Iraq's development of weapons of mass destruction have been exhausted. We call upon our governments to pursue these diplomatic means in active cooperation with the United Nations and to stop the apparent rush to war. 'Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of God'" (Matthew 5:9).

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

WCC on Iraq: "Pre-emptive war against Iraq illegal, immoral and unwise"

Cf WCC Press Update, Up-02-29 of 20 September 2002

Many Christians around the world "strongly believe that pre-emptive war against Iraq is illegal, immoral and unwise" says a letter sent today by World Council of Churches (WCC) general secretary Rev. Dr Konrad Raiser to the fifteen members of the UN Security Council, the UN secretary-general and under-secretary-general.

The letter is in reaction to approval by the United States House of Representatives and Senate on 10 October of a congressional joint resolution to authorize the use of force against Iraq. It recalls that "the WCC has always advocated for every member state to comply with binding UN resolutions and to resolve conflicts by peaceful means" and that "Iraq can be no exception". Raiser points out that the Council has repeatedly called on Iraq to destroy its weapons of mass destruction, cooperate with UN inspectors, and guarantee full respect of its citizens' human rights,

But, the letter argues, "The people of Iraq have suffered enough under a sanctions regime since 1991. Inflicting further punishment on innocent civilians is not morally acceptable to anyone."

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In other words, Southern Baptists pretty much stood alone among Christians in calling this war just. I don't accept the statement that Southern Baptists have a monopoly on the true gospel and will be the only ones in Heaven. Do you?