yeah, it is too bad. if only, if only.

pacifism.

i don't think war is anything but human nature. and like all things that fall under human nature, no definites can be formed. the sad thing i find, is that some people take pacifism so seriously and forcibly that it becomes a war on war and even violence occurs.

I just dont like the war and I think it is like terible and all. I just wish it could stop and all. But I know it wont and I have to get over it. But I wont ever give up wishing. I want everyone who is fighting over there to come home and all. but sadly only a little are comming. but I am one person .. what could I do.

later

<3 julee

ya, the beach and the seminar thing were amazing! not sure which one you wish you could have gone to, i'm thinking the seminar ;)

I think some of the answers being given here aren't dealing with the questions being asked.  The question is not "Is the war in Iraq a just war?"  The question is "Is war ever just?"  I'm not one to say that this war is just and that war isn't.  There are too many factors involved to make that kind of statement.  We can only answer through the lenses of history, the wars fought in the past, and through Scripture. 

Christ was passive.  His teachings to His disciples were radical, love your enemies, turn the other cheek, be kind and gentle to all.  These messages were to His disiciples, very important.  Paul in his letters, as well as Peter, supported the government (and they lived under oppresive and wicked men).  Why is the government in place . . . to keep the peace.  What is needed sometimes to keep the peace . . . force.  Force is needed to keep the peace, force is never to be used to advance religion (especially Christianity).

Would it have been alright for the U.S. to stay out of WWII?  What about a lot of the genocide going on in Africa?  Should countries ignore that as well?  If our country was to be attacked again by a known enemy, should we just stay on the defensive or go and make sure they don't hit us again?  War is case specific, the topic be handled with a cool head and gentleness, be examined critically and prayerfully.  This is all I have to write.  If I've left anything out, I'll come back later.

grace, mercy, peace

I agree with La La Rob.

Our president lied and mislead our troops into a war they basically got trapped in.

This war is costing our countrys billions and soon to be trillions and no matter what the religion, americans have to realize what is going on overseas is spiraling out of control.

i know everything about me is INTERESTINGGG!!!!!!

hey i got your name from a friend, i would love to comment if you dont mind,


pacifism is a great idea, in theory, that is. i wish more nations would use the idea instead of nuclear warfare, talking and discussing issues is easier than taking lives.

Most people would talk shit about George W.Bush, hes not my favorite person either, but other countries are at the brink of war and all the media can cover is his mistakes (ex pakistan and Iran). That makes total sense? Im Anti-War, if its possible talking out the issues and discussing it like intellegent humans is the best thing, But some situations, where indeed you or your country is at risk of attack, should be met with war. I know it might be impossible to always talk things out with dictators or even communist parties, but still it would be nice to make an effort to atleast try.if your pro-war, than put your shoes where your mouth is and go sign up for the army.


all in all, its a great idea, but we'd have to have intellegent leaders of ALL nations to achieve this goal. I dont think we will ever have world peace, until there is only one person left on this earth(and no thats not a jesus reference, he died). I dont think its possible to settle issues like intellegent people, at least not now.


jeremy

Nabeelmasih (who, btw, has the same pic of C.S. Lewis as you) asked a very similiar question ("was Jesus a pacifist?"), and I gave this response:

Eh...well, the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language defines "pacifism" thusly:

pac·i·fism    ( P )  Pronunciation Key  (ps-fzm)
n.

I suppose it's more or less undeniable that Jesus would advocate peaceful solutions to international conflicts.  Would He condemn war in every circumstance, or refuse to get out onto the battlefield?  Well, yes, I believe so.  Now, I realize some people will argue that there are such things as "just wars", but just what is a just war?  Presumably, it's a war where one of the two sides is engaging in immoral activity and the other side is trying to stop it from going on.  Here's the thing: The Roman Empire was the most corrupt government in history.  Without a doubt, many of Jesus' followers would have (and did, the Bible records) advocated a war with Rome, and yet Jesus taught His disciples to submit to this tyranny and render under Caesar.  I might add that many scholars believe that Judas Iscariot belonged to such an anti-Roman group (the sikarios of Acts 21:38, rendered "murderers" in the King James Bible) and that his betrayl of the Lord Jesus was motivated by these political views.

Jesus was not above using viloence [sic] if necessary. He cleansed the temple of moneychangers by overturning the tables and uncaging the animals that were being sold as sacrifices, saying that they had turned his fathers house into a den of theives [sic]! Is that the act of a pacifist?

Actually, yes, it could be. Look at the definition from www.dictionary.com again.  There was nothing military about this protest of Christ's; it was a religious indignation He expressed, not a political one.

Matthew 10:34 says, in the Authorized Version: "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword." Come, now, old sport, look at the next five verses: "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. And a man's foes shall be they of his own household. 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. And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me. He that findeth his life shall lose it: and he that loseth his life for my sake shall find it." Jesus is not discussing warfare; He is describing the conflict that would (and did) arise from people accepting the controversial Gospel message when the rest of their family rejected it.  (Remember that the sword is a Biblical metaphor for the Word of God.)  This is why the parallel passage in Luke 12:51 reads, "Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division..."  Two verses earlier, Jesus said, "I am come to send fire on the earth; and what will I, if it be already kindled?"  If you want to be consistent, does this mean Jesus was an arsonist?

Jesus advocated love and patience as opposed to hatred and revenge, but not a total pacifism that forbids self-defense. In Luke 22:36, Jesus seemed to be advising the disciples to use self-defense when necessary, but nothing more.

Well, old sport, you point out that Jesus was using a Jewish expression when He referred to "turning the other cheek".  This is the same thing He's doing here.  The verse in question reads:
"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."
John Wesley comments: "It is plain, this is not to be taken literally. It only means, This will be a time of extreme danger."
Barnes' Notes remark: "It altogether refers to their future life. They were going into the midst of dangers. The country was infested with robbers and wild beasts. It was customary to go armed. He tells them of those dangers - of the necessity of being prepared in the usual way to meet them. This, then, is not to be considered as a specific, positive 'command to procure a sword, but an intimation that great dangers were before them; that their manner of life would be changed, and that they would need the provisions 'appropriate to that kind of life.'"
The Geneva Bible says: "He says all this using an allegory, as if he said, 'O my friends and fellow soldiers, you have lived until now in relative peace: but now there is at hand a most severe battle to be fought, and you must therefore lay all other things aside and think about dressing yourselves in armour.' And what this armour is, is shown by his own example, when he prayed afterward in the garden and reproved Peter for striking with the sword."
If you want to take this literally, than explain why this occured shortly thereafter:
"And they said, Lord, behold, here are two swords. And he said unto them, It is enough."
Barnes' Notes: "[H]e meant to reprove them for understanding him 'literally,' as if he meant that they were then to procure swords for "immediate" battle. As if he had said, 'This is absurd, or a perversion of my meaning. I did not intend this, but merely to foretell you of impending dangers after my death.'"
Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown: "[T]hey [were] thinking He referred to present defense, while His answer showed He meant something else."
John Wesley: "And he said; It is enough - I did not mean literally, that every one of you must have a sword."

Also, Revelation 11 predicts that Jesus will return on a white horse to declare war on the beast and the ungodly nations:

Yes, it does, but this is not an act of military response to controversy between nations; this is a holy and righteous God executing judgment on the hordes of the unregenerate.  Obviously, there are wars which the Lord God Himself initiated from the heavenly realms (in the Old Testament etc.), but Jesus never advocated an exclusively "human" war.

Anyway. Those are just my "thoughts".

In Christ, and for the gospel of the kingdom,
Brett

'Obligation,' eh?

"Just" is an adverb that can mean anything from 'precisely' or 'exactly' to a mark of insignificant distance to 'certainly.'

I am, of course, being facetious.

Crackers?

ag

War can be just. I won't say that the war in iraq, (or the soon to be war in iran) is. B/c its not. The only purpose of these two wars is oil. Heck, Bush has even admitted that the only reason we're still there is to protect the oil from "terrorists". I think its time we ask ourselves who the real terrorists are.

But. Thats a side issue, though an important one. Jesus was not a pacifist, as most people say. His time on earth he was completely harmless to his enemies, b/c at that point in time, it was not the time to fight. However, he does say in the book of john. When speaking to herod:

"If my kingdom were of this earth, then my people would fight. That I would not be handed over to the jews. But my kingdom is not of this earth NOW.

Well, an ordinary, foolish, rapture believing, watered down christian would say that Jesus said not to fight back.  But thats simply not true. Jesus's kingdom has come to earth. And while its true that Paul and Peter said that we were to obey our governments. That is only true as long as they are 1. rightous leaders, who don't break the laws of the Lord, and 2. are legitimate governments.

The reason that Paul and Peter did not fight back is simply b/c it was not their calling. They revolted within their calling. It was illegal to preach the gospel, yet they did.

How about Nazi Germany, or Communist China, or Russia. Do you think its ok to just let the government get away w/ killing people?

Also, in the Bible. The purpose of many wars was not only to give the israelites the land. But also to judge the wicked nations! Wars are a result of judgment, they may have been brought about by the greed of evil men in power. But whether they know it or not, the evil men still are a part of the Lord's plan.

Let me ask you something else,  Lets just say that you are attacked by 2 men. One w/ a gun. They intend on raping your gf. Your gf bites one of the men, and he drops his gun. Do you grab the gun and shoot the two men? If you wouldn't, then you are the biggest coward ive ever laid eyes on. If you say yes, then you are condoning armed resistance. I have no problem w/ that.

One thing you may not understand. While it does say: vengeance is mine saith the Lord, I will repay. And that in the end times, He will bring judgement on the wicked. Well, I have news for you, most of the time, men, rightous men, are the instrument of God's justice.

Referring to the previous question: If Jesus had a pick-axe, would he have killed Hitler with it? I feel that the ramefications of this question are rather self-evident.

Well, the answer, would be:

If Jesus would've come back during ww2, impossible since not all the prophecys had been fulfilled. In that situation, (though i believe that it would be much more spectacular than a pick ax) Yes. When Jesus returns, he is not coming as a peacemaker. He is coming back as conquering king. To completely decimate the armies of the antichrist. In front of the eyes of the remnant (sorry guys no rapture, get used to it, it aint Biblical). As much as you'd like to believe it. If God is willing to send someone to hell for his sin. Would he not kill the man that murdered millions of people. Not even mentioning the men that have killed more than hitler (stalin, mao)

Jesus was not a pacifist, as most people say.

Did someone say that?

Well, an ordinary, foolish, rapture believing, watered down christian would say that Jesus said not to fight back.

I am not aware of anything in dispensationalism that advocates such a passive stance.  Maybe you could provide some source material.

And while its true that Paul and Peter said that we were to obey our governments. That is only true as long as they are 1. rightous leaders, who don't break the laws of the Lord, and 2. are legitimate governments.

Actually I would have to disagree.  The context of Paul's charge to the Romans (Romans 13) was in the backdrop of Xians being crucified and lighted up (in flames) by Nero.  Rome was anything but righteous in leadership or application.  Paul's point is that in spite of this, God has ordained Rome to serve it's purpose.  Notice in the text there is no call to arms against persecution but rather Paul says (previously) "Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, “Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord." (Rom 12:19)  Peter is speaking to Xians who are dying for their faith and what does he say?  "Servants, be subject to your masters with all respect, not only to the good and gentle but also to the unjust.  For this is a gracious thing, when, mindful of God, one endures sorrows while suffering unjustly." (1 Pet 2:18-19)  And what should be our example when the government is unjust against us?  "When he was reviled, he did not revile in return; when he suffered, he did not threaten, but continued entrusting himself to him who judges justly." (1 Pet 2:23)  We submit to the governing authorities in spite of their sinfullness.  That doesn't mean blind submission (i can alread hear people complaining) because there are areas in which we are to stand and resist peacefully.  However we might be killed for it.  And God is honored by such a death.  Thats the point of the text. 

The reason that Paul and Peter did not fight back is simply b/c it was not their calling. They revolted within their calling.      

Please show in Scripture where this idea is found.

How about Nazi Germany, or Communist China, or Russia. Do you think its ok to just let the government get away w/ killing people?

Why do you even ask this question?  Of course the answer is no!  The way we go about solving the problem may look different, but everyone wants the same end result - an end to sinful injustice.

Let me ask you something else,  Lets just say that you are attacked by 2 men. One w/ a gun. They intend on raping your gf. Your gf bites one of the men, and he drops his gun. Do you grab the gun and shoot the two men?

Establishing the normative practice from a exceptionary situation is a very unwise idea.  What if you grab the gun (while holding them off) and wait till the police arrive?  Or how about shooting them in the knee caps?  See the problem with this?  I could go a ton of different ways with this.  However I don't think it's wrong to protect those you love.  Is this a tension on my part?  Maybe.  But than again I never promised I was consistent. 

Well, I have news for you, most of the time, men, rightous men, are the instrument of God's justice.

I wonder how many wicked, unjust men said this line (and probably believed it) in an effort to gain support for their causes.  ( I have in mind people that blow up abortion clinics, violence against homosexuals, etc.)  Again, (since I am reformed) I believe God ordains all things to work together for His good purpose.  However this does not mean we can start handing out God's wrath to society.  The government is the only God ordained vehicle for regulating punishment.  This does not mean they will always be right (see Iraq War) in what they do.  We miss the main thrust of Paul and Peter's message (which was Jesus's message) when we see ourselves as God's righteous distributor of retribution.  Xians are called to a ministry of reconcilliation that involved peacefully (with a servant's heart) changing the world.  We do that through real heart change (not any kind of force).  Thats what makes the Xian gospel so foolish...cuz the methods we employ seem so weak in the world's eyes.  (Who want's to sell everything they have and live with the poor?  Who wants to have a servant's heart?  Who want's to spend their life banking it on a crucified Messiah?)  Thats the way the gospel works.         

"To the contrary, “if your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink; for by so doing you will heap burning coals on his head.” Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good."   Romans 12: 20-21

I am reminded of a question that John Lennon asked:

"What does it mean when you are such a pacifist, you get shot?"

On 9/11, we got shot. Thank God we have a president that has the courage to go out and fight terrorism and despotism over seas so we don't have to endure it here. Many have posed the question: Are we justified in going to war in Iraq. I pose another question. How could we justify not going to war in Iraq? Saddam's regime was characterized by genocide, systematic rape, repression, torture, execution, and mass murder! That is reason enough to remove him, weapons of mass detruction aside.

The Old Testament acknowledges frankly that there is "a time to kill" (Eccles. 3:3). At various times in the Old Testament, God commanded the Israelites to defend their nation by force of arms. Yet it was always with the recognition that peace is the goal to be worked for. Thus the psalmist exclaims, "how good and pleasant it is when brothers dwell in unity!" (Ps. 133:1). Peace is the goal, but when it cannot be achieved without force, force must be used.

In the same way, the New Testament sets forth the goal of peace but acknowledges the legitimate use of force. It does so by John the Baptist's acknowledgment that Roman soldiers, whose job it was to enforce the Pax Romana, or "Peace of Rome," could keep their jobs (Luke 3:14) and by Paul's observation that the state "does not bear the sword in vain" but is "God's servant for your good" (Rom. 13:4).

The most authoritative and up-to-date expression of "just war" doctrine is found in paragraph 2309 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church. It says:

All citizens and all governments are obliged to work for the avoidance of war.
However, "as long as the danger of war persists and there is no international authority with the necessary competence and power (ie: the U.N.), governments cannot be denied the right of lawful self-defense, once all peace efforts have failed".  According to the just war doctrine, military action is permissable if all the following criteria hold:

- the damage inflicted by the aggressor (in this case, Saddam) on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;
- all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;
- there must be serious prospects of success;
- the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated.

When it comes to the war in Iraq, it seems all of these conditions hold. Therefore, the war in Iraq can be considered "just" by the criteria of the church.