Is There Such A Thing As A Just War?

[Don]

But the question for this thread is: Is there such a thing as a just war? Ideally, there would be biblical support for this.

Based on what you have said, I assume you are saying that yes, there is a case for a just war if we are defending another country that is being militarily attacked. Am I correct?

If so, how about if they were not being attacked but were oppressed by a brutal dictator? Would it be a case for just war to go over and free them with military forces?

I know it's rude, but please allow me to answer your question with a question: If a friend of yours was being treated poorly by an employer or co-worker, and asked you for help - would you refuse him/her?

If so, what's your biblical basis for your refusal?

 

[Marcia]

I know it's rude, but please allow me to answer your question with a question: If a friend of yours was being treated poorly by an employer or co-worker, and asked you for help - would you refuse him/her?

If so, what's your biblical basis for your refusal?

You answer my questions first. Then I'll answer yours. Deal?

 

[Don]

Deal. Romans 15:1 is my justification: "We then that are strong ought to bear the infirmities of the weak, and not to please ourselves."

Especially the "not to please ourselves" part.

If necessary, I'll be happy to try to explain further.

 

[Marcia]

Deal. Romans 15:1 is my justification: "We then that are strong ought to bear the infirmities of the weak, and not to please ourselves."

Especially the "not to please ourselves" part.

If necessary, I'll be happy to try to explain further.

Please show how this means defending someone physically.

This is the context. It seems to be talking about caring for fellow Christians.

1Now we who are strong ought to bear the weaknesses of those without strength and not just please ourselves.

2Each of us is to please his neighbor for his good, to his edification.
3For even Christ did not please Himself; but as it is written, "THE REPROACHES OF THOSE WHO REPROACHED YOU FELL ON ME."
4For whatever was written in earlier times was written for our instruction, so that through perseverance and the encouragement of the Scriptures we might have hope.
5Now may the God who gives perseverance and encouragement grant you to be of the same mind with one another according to Christ Jesus,
6so that with one accord you may with one voice glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. 7Therefore, accept one another, just as Christ also accepted us to the glory of God.

 

[Marcia]

I know it's rude, but please allow me to answer your question with a question: If a friend of yours was being treated poorly by an employer or co-worker, and asked you for help - would you refuse him/her?

If so, what's your biblical basis for your refusal?

I would help them if I could. Not sure what I would do. I think this would involve giving advice. This does not mean physical intervention (which would be futile anyway; I need help opening jars sometimes!) nor does it mean going to war.

Don, you didn't answer this:

If so, how about if they were not being attacked but were oppressed by a brutal dictator? Would it be a case for just war to go over and free them with military forces?

 

[Don]

Actually, if you'll see the analogy I drew with my question to you about the co-worker/employer, you'll see that I did answer you.

 

[Don]

Please show how this means defending someone physically.

This is the context. It seems to be talking about caring for fellow Christians.

Don't forget the passage preceding, where it talks about how to act in front of other Christians.

Taken all together, I see a principle where we are to care for others. The principle does not limit this care to only emotional, or spiritual, or physical aspects; if our brother is hungry, we are to feed him (physical). If he is suffering, we are to tend to him (emotional). If he is lost, we are to help him find his way (spiritual).

And if he is being beaten, or trampled, or cut, or whipped, we are to defend him.

 

[Don]

And one more thing while I'm thinking about it: scripturally, what are the responsibilities of the ruler (leader)? One of those responsiblities is the protection of those God has placed him over.

Is he to do that all by himself? Or do we take the biblical principle found in Romans 13 and recognize that the ruler is exercising a God-given duty, and therefore it is now our duty to help him fulfill that?

I hope that makes sense.

 

[JustChristian]

So if you don't like what the Bible says, you just ignore those parts?

No, I'm saying that when there seems to be a conflict in scripture it needs to be put in the overall perspective of Christ's message. Some scriptire is more direct and more to the point than others. The verses on buying a sword or a minor part of the New Testament.

Perhaps you should show how these verses stand up in relation to the ones I posted and in relation to the rest of scripture. I'd be happy to argue that Christ's message was love not hate.

 

[Don]

No, I'm saying that when there seems to be a conflict in scripture it needs to be put in the overall perspective of Christ's message. Some scriptire is more direct and more to the point than others. The verses on buying a sword or a minor part of the New Testament.

Perhaps you should show how these verses stand up in relation to the ones I posted and in relation to the rest of scripture. I'd be happy to argue that Christ's message was love not hate.

I believe I've already answered this in the last few posts I've made. If you need further clarification, please let me know.

 

[just-want-peace]

I'd be happy to argue that Christ's message was love not hate.

Not sure your take on this JC, but while the message of Jesus contains no hate (except sin itself) I don't see this as denying physical intervention if needed.

IE: as you are walking along a country road after a bird hunt, you hear a muffled cry from some woods several yards away. You stop to investigate and find a rape in progress.

Now, based on your use of the message of Christ, do you point your shotgun at the rapist and demand that he cease and desist immediately, knowing that you just may have to end this life to achieve the aim of freeing the victim, or do you just call 911 on your cell hoping for the best?

To me, this is just a microcosm of the "just war" argument, and I would really like to know your take on this.

Reason I ask is that once a few years ago a poster on this board answered my query that "--you are carrying concealed, and you come upon a sniper that you can tell is ready to engage his next target." (This was about the time of the sniper attacks in and around DC several years ago, thus the specific example)

This poster told me that he wold NOT attempt to stop the sniper, but would just call the police. Now perhaps if he kept watch on this guy til the cops got there he may be successful in getting him off the streets, but by this time there would be one more fatality that VERY EASILY could have been prevented.

What would Jesus have done???? What would you have done??

Personally, I would have yelled for the guy to back off pronto, and if he did not or made any threatening moves he would be listed in the next days obit column.

 

[JustChristian]

I believe I've already answered this in the last few posts I've made. If you need further clarification, please let me know.

You haven't and I do. Jesus stood for love not hate and war.

 

[Andy T.]

JWP, we all know what the right thing to do in that situation, and it is what you stated - take the guy out. Anything less is moral cowardice. I wonder if pacifists are also against any and all policing? To be consistent, they should be, because police have to use force and violence at times. After all, god is love and he would never hurt anybody, even the rapist. What a joke.

 

[just-want-peace]

JWP, we all know what the right thing to do in that situation, and it is what you stated - take the guy out. Anything less is moral cowardice. I wonder if pacifists are also against any and all policing? To be consistent, they should be, because police have to use force and violence at times. After all, god is love and he would never hurt anybody, even the rapist. What a joke.

Interesting observation Andy!

I notice JC posted approx 4 hours after my question above, but I was totally ignored - wonder if that answers the question??

 

[JustChristian]

Not sure your take on this JC, but while the message of Jesus contains no hate (except sin itself) I don't see this as denying physical intervention if needed.

IE: as you are walking along a country road after a bird hunt, you hear a muffled cry from some woods several yards away. You stop to investigate and find a rape in progress.

Now, based on your use of the message of Christ, do you point your shotgun at the rapist and demand that he cease and desist immediately, knowing that you just may have to end this life to achieve the aim of freeing the victim, or do you just call 911 on your cell hoping for the best?

To me, this is just a microcosm of the "just war" argument, and I would really like to know your take on this.

Reason I ask is that once a few years ago a poster on this board answered my query that "--you are carrying concealed, and you come upon a sniper that you can tell is ready to engage his next target." (This was about the time of the sniper attacks in and around DC several years ago, thus the specific example)

This poster told me that he wold NOT attempt to stop the sniper, but would just call the police. Now perhaps if he kept watch on this guy til the cops got there he may be successful in getting him off the streets, but by this time there would be one more fatality that VERY EASILY could have been prevented.

What would Jesus have done???? What would you have done??

Personally, I would have yelled for the guy to back off pronto, and if he did not or made any threatening moves he would be listed in the next days obit column.

Are you arguing that Jesus would have killed the sniper with a gun? I would definitely have yelled at the sniper and perhaps he would have killed me instead of his intended victim. I would not stop at rushing him or hitting him with something. Maybe use mace or something non lethal. Personally, I don't know whether I could pull the trigger and kill him. For one thing, I've never fired a gun in my life so I wouldn't have one.

I remember that on a trip on time I stayed in a very dangerous looking fleabag motel. A friend had given me a hunting knife as a souvenir and I had it in the car. For whatever reason I decided to sleep with it under my pillow. The next morning I realized that it was highly unlikely that I would actually stick that knife into another human being. It was more likely that the intruder would grab it from me and kill me with it.

So, I don't know what my own behavior would have been. I do know what Jesus would have done. Nothing.

 

[JustChristian]

Interesting observation Andy!

I notice JC posted approx 4 hours after my question above, but I was totally ignored - wonder if that answers the question??

Did you ask me a question? Not that I can see.

 

[Don]

You haven't and I do. Jesus stood for love not hate and war.

Actually, I did; however, I apparently didn't do so in a manner which you understand.

First off, I agree: Jesus stood for love, not hate and war.

Now, let's examine your concept of Jesus. According to your last few posts, Jesus would not have done anything to a sniper waiting to shoot a victim. However, scripture tells us that He went into the synagogue and actually cast people out (casting people out presumes some form of physicality), as well as overturning tables and the seats of those that sold doves -- see Matt 21:12, Mark 11:16, and Luke 19:45. Is this the same Jesus that would do nothing?

Next, to further explain my answers to previous questions, let's use your answer about the sniper. You agree that you wouldn't simply stand by and let him shoot someone else; that, in a nutshell, is exactly what I'm talking about.

Is there such a thing as a just war? If you can honestly say that you would not stand by and let a sniper shoot someone, then you have to admit that there is such a thing as a just war. It's that simple.

A "just war" isn't one that is waged to benefit any particular party; it is waged to defend and protect, because all other means have been exhausted or ignored.

I can find nothing in scripture that contradicts defending and protecting others. Instead, I find verses like the two I've presented before: We who are stronger should bear the infirmaties of the weak; and greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.

If that still doesn't make sense to you, well, I apologize, but I just can't explain it any clearer than that.

 

[JustChristian]

Actually, I did; however, I apparently didn't do so in a manner which you understand.

First off, I agree: Jesus stood for love, not hate and war.

Now, let's examine your concept of Jesus. According to your last few posts, Jesus would not have done anything to a sniper waiting to shoot a victim. However, scripture tells us that He went into the synagogue and actually cast people out (casting people out presumes some form of physicality), as well as overturning tables and the seats of those that sold doves -- see Matt 21:12, Mark 11:16, and Luke 19:45. Is this the same Jesus that would do nothing?

Next, to further explain my answers to previous questions, let's use your answer about the sniper. You agree that you wouldn't simply stand by and let him shoot someone else; that, in a nutshell, is exactly what I'm talking about.

Is there such a thing as a just war? If you can honestly say that you would not stand by and let a sniper shoot someone, then you have to admit that there is such a thing as a just war. It's that simple.

A "just war" isn't one that is waged to benefit any particular party; it is waged to defend and protect, because all other means have been exhausted or ignored.

I can find nothing in scripture that contradicts defending and protecting others. Instead, I find verses like the two I've presented before: We who are stronger should bear the infirmaties of the weak; and greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.

If that still doesn't make sense to you, well, I apologize, but I just can't explain it any clearer than that.

I was sloppy in the way I worded that. I agree that Jesus would have done something. It just wouldn't have involved killing anyone. I also agree that the Bible supports defending and protecting others. I challenge you to find New Testament scripture that says this can include taking their life.

The theory of just war was not introduced in the Bible. I believe that it was discussed by Cicero and certainly by Thomas Aquinas and Augustine. I suppose you could call it a philosophical or theological argument. I basically accept it but still have some misgivings. When I was younger and facing the possibility of getting drafted to fight in Viet Nam I couldn't understand how a Christian could be anything other than a pacifist. Maybe I should be a Mennonite.

 

[Marcia]

Don't forget the passage preceding, where it talks about how to act in front of other Christians.

Taken all together, I see a principle where we are to care for others. The principle does not limit this care to only emotional, or spiritual, or physical aspects; if our brother is hungry, we are to feed him (physical). If he is suffering, we are to tend to him (emotional). If he is lost, we are to help him find his way (spiritual).

And if he is being beaten, or trampled, or cut, or whipped, we are to defend him.

I can see how you are appling this in a broad way, but I don't think the text calls for war. I think that is your application of it.

As for governments, I think you have a better argument there.

Of course, the subject of the thread is not: Is it okay to go to war? But rather, Is there such a thing as a just war?

Since the wars that have been fought in my lifetime seem very fuzzy in their justifications (pun intended!), I find it difficult to discern if any of these wars are just or not.

 

[Don]

I can see how you are appling this in a broad way, but I don't think the text calls for war. I think that is your application of it.

If I may -- how about we say, is one application of it? I'm not too hung up on myself to believe that I have the absolute answers to all of life's questions.

As for governments, I think you have a better argument there.

Of course, the subject of the thread is not: Is it okay to go to war? But rather, Is there such a thing as a just war?

Since the wars that have been fought in my lifetime seem very fuzzy in their justifications (pun intended!), I find it difficult to discern if any of these wars are just or not.

And that, like your other question, is an excellent question. There are many who would look at WWII, and still wonder if that was a "just war" or not. For example, what threat did Hitler actually pose to America?

As for the current conflicts, my reconciliation is my personal experiences with the people of Iraq. In this area, I know that what we're doing is just.