Richard Land

[80sU2isBest]

The subject of war is never addressed in the New Testament. But Christ does speak against violence and attacking in word and action. Matthew 5:39 Whosoever strikes you on your right cheek, turn to him the other also. This verse teaches to suffer an injustice rather than to demand our rights and perputrate a fight. Christ would want us to live unselfish lives, and not to seek to vindicate our own petty dignity, but return good for evil.

In the garden right before his trial he returned good for evil by healing the servant whose ear had been cut off by Peter's sword. He did not want violence to be inflicted in defending him.

But when Christ talked about "turn the other cheek", he was not talking about war or anything like that. It was on a personal level. The idea was that in your personal life, you are not to take "an eye for an eye". He never said anything either implicitly or directly about war. It's just not in there.

And the reason he din't want violence to be inflicted in his defense wasn't because he didn't think violence was never justified to defend oneself; he rebuked Peter for the same reason he rebuked him when Peter said that he wouldn't let Jesus die - because Peter was standing in the way of God's will and plan for salvation.

And also, you said that war is not of God. Tell that to all the nations that God told David to conquer.

 

[sulawesigirl4]

80s, you are making an assumption that those injunctions are only to apply to persons and not to nations. The Bible is of course, always interpreted through the lens of the one reading it, but you should at least be able to acknowledge that you're not stating facts. You're stating your interpretation.

It's pretty common knowledge that the "just war" theory was developed later in Christian history by Augustine to justify participating in wars of the time. Whether or not that development was true to the Biblical text is something to be debated. But it's definitely not a given.

 

[BVS]

But when Christ talked about "turn the other cheek", he was not talking about war or anything like that. It was on a personal level. The idea was that in your personal life, you are not to take "an eye for an eye". He never said anything either implicitly or directly about war. It's just not in there.

I believe I said in my post that war was never mentioned in the New Testament.

So you're telling me that with your interpretation of Christ's teachings, these things only apply to individuals. So nations can lie, steal, blaspheme, etc.? This doesn't make sense to me.

 

[U2Bama]

So are y'all suggesting that the government of the United States begin taking actions based on what the Bible says? That the government should implement some type of Christian law, like a theocracy? That wouldn't be fair to followers of other religions, and it would probably violate the establishment clause of the First Amendment.

~U2Alabama

 

[BVS]

So are y'all suggesting that the government of the United States begin taking actions based on what the Bible says? That the government should implement some type of Christian law, like a theocracy? That wouldn't be fair to followers of other religions, and it would probably violate the establishment clause of the First Amendment.

~U2Alabama

Please read my post again Bama. I said Politics and Religion can't mix, not today. I'm just sick of Christians trying to justify this war with scripture.

 

[sulawesigirl4]

Bama, I think you're putting words in people's mouths. While hopefully none of us would advocate the sort of theocracy that many on the far right dream of, it's an undeniable fact of life that one's personal beliefs influence one's politics and the choices one makes. I'm a Christian and because of that fact I would be inclined to vote against a political party that sees violence as the answer to problems. I fail to see how that has anything to do with the separation of church and state.

 

[80sU2isBest]

80s, you are making an assumption that those injunctions are only to apply to persons and not to nations. The Bible is of course, always interpreted through the lens of the one reading it, but you should at least be able to acknowledge that you're not stating facts. You're stating your interpretation.

Sula, I'm not exactly making an assumption, I am reading the passage in context. In that passage in Matthew he is speaking about personal behavior in relationships.

 

[80sU2isBest]

I believe I said in my post that war was never mentioned in the New Testament.

So you're telling me that with your interpretation of Christ's teachings, these things only apply to individuals. So nations can lie, steal, blaspheme, etc.? This doesn't make sense to me.

No, that's not what I'm saying in all cases, but in this case, he was specifically speaking about people's interpersonal; relationships, and how to handle oneself in certain situations.

A nation sometimes has to wage war. And what really doesn't make sense to me is that people are always saying that Christianity and war never mix, when there is no Biblical basis for that whatsoever.

 

[80sU2isBest]

I'm a Christian and because of that fact I would be inclined to vote against a political party that sees violence as the answer to problems.

Sula, I am a Christian also, and I'd like to ask you a question:

How would you have handled Hitler? Sanctions?

 

[sulawesigirl4]

Sula, I am a Christian also, and I'd like to ask you a question:

How would you have handled Hitler? Sanctions?

That's the usual one that "just war" theorists like to throw out there, although quite frankly I think it's a poor debating tactic

Honestly, I can't say for sure because I wasn't there. But one thing is for certain. If I decided that fighting against Hitler was necessary, I would count it as a necessary evil and not something blessed, demanded or sanctioned by God. And I would expect to be judged for the lives that I took.

 

[80sU2isBest]

That's the usual one that "just war" theorists like to throw out there, although quite frankly I think it's a poor debating tactic

Don't just "tsk" me, explain it to me. Why is it a "poor debating tactic"? It's not like I made WW2 up. It happened. So, what is wrong with that as a debating tactic?

And also, if God is against war at all times, why did he order not only David but Joshua and Gideon and others to wage war?

 

[BVS]

And what really doesn't make sense to me is that people are always saying that Christianity and war never mix, when there is no Biblical basis for that whatsoever.

Well this is where you and I will disagree. But you can't speak in absolutes, neither you nor I have the perfect interpretations of Christ's word.

 

[BVS]

And also, if God is against war at all times, why did he order not only David but Joshua and Gideon and others to wage war?

Did things not change with the New Testament?

 

[sulawesigirl4]

Don't just "tsk" me, explain it to me. Why is it a "poor debating tactic"? It's not like I made WW2 up. It happened. So, what is wrong with that as a debating tactic?

And also, if God is against war at all times, why did he order not only David but Joshua and Gideon and others to wage war?

Because it's using a worse-case scenario, one fraught with loaded images. Your opponent is then forced into a fake stale-mate. It's like bringing out the "n" word when discussing race relations. I think you could do better. But whatever works for you.

Equating God's work in specific circumstances in Jewish history with America in the 20th century is sketchy at best. Unless you want to say that God still speaks to potentates of nations who are unelected and unanswerable to anyone. Anyways, I have had the "just war" debate for the last 5 months or so while at L'Abri and I'm quite tired of it. And it's almost the weekend. So I bid you a nice holiday and if you insist we can pick this up later.

 

[80sU2isBest]

Did things not change with the New Testament?

God doesn't change.

Our relationship to the law is changed. A person who has accepted the sacrifice of Christ and has made Christ his Savior is no longer under the curse of the law. But as Paul said, that doesn't mean we are free to do whatever we want. It's just that now, Christ lives in us and through us (Christians), and he is our power to do righteous things. In fact, he is the Christian's righteousness.

However, God didn't just change his mind on things.

 

[80sU2isBest]

Because it's using a worse-case scenario, one fraught with loaded images. Your opponent is then forced into a fake stale-mate. It's like bringing out the "n" word when discussing race relations. I think you could do better. But whatever works for you.

Equating God's work in specific circumstances in Jewish history with America in the 20th century is sketchy at best. Unless you want to say that God still speaks to potentates of nations who are unelected and unanswerable to anyone. Anyways, I have had the "just war" debate for the last 5 months or so while at L'Abri and I'm quite tired of it. And it's almost the weekend. So I bid you a nice holiday and if you insist we can pick this up later.

Okey dokey, you have a good 4th, also!

 

[FizzingWhizzbees]

IMO bringing up WW2 to justify war on Iraq (which nobody has done specifically in this thread, but have done frequently in the past) is a poor debating tactic because there is no comparison between the two situations. There has been no other war fought in the 20th century in a situation that was in any way comparable to WW2. Just because a person might have believe it was necessary to fight WW2 does not mean the same person believes other wars were justified.

I'm actually not arguing that war is never justified because I don't have a definite opinion on that subject. However, I am arguing that Christianity cannot be used as a justification for war.

 

[BVS]

God doesn't change.

Our relationship to the law is changed. A person who has accepted the sacrifice of Christ and has made Christ his Savior is no longer under the curse of the law. But as Paul said, that doesn't mean we are free to do whatever we want. It's just that now, Christ lives in us and through us (Christians), and he is our power to do righteous things. In fact, he is the Christian's righteousness.

However, God didn't just change his mind on things.

With the sacrifice made, we no longer have to sacrifice the lamb before God and we no longer are waging wars in his name.

 

[80sU2isBest]

I'm actually not arguing that war is never justified because I don't have a definite opinion on that subject. However, I am arguing that Christianity cannot be used as a justification for war.

And what I am saying is that Christianity cannot be used as a basis for arguing against war.

 

[FizzingWhizzbees]

But your argument for this appears to be that commandments which would seem to oppose violence are applicable to individuals but not to countries or governments.

This raises two questions for me:
Firstly - how do you know this is the case? I've read the part of the Bible you are quoting here and I don't understand how you've come to the conclusion that it doesn't apply to countries or governments only to individuals.
Secondly - would it therefore be okay for countries or governments to kill or lie or steal and there could be no argument against this based on Christianity?

 

[U2Bama]

Bama, I think you're putting words in people's mouths. While hopefully none of us would advocate the sort of theocracy that many on the far right dream of, it's an undeniable fact of life that one's personal beliefs influence one's politics and the choices one makes. I'm a Christian and because of that fact I would be inclined to vote against a political party that sees violence as the answer to problems. I fail to see how that has anything to do with the separation of church and state.

Well, I didn't intend to put words in people's mouths, I was just stating what I inferred from your statement:

Originally posted by sulawesigirl4
80s, you are making an assumption that those injunctions are only to apply to persons and not to nations.

and that of BonoVoxSupastar:

Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar
So you're telling me that with your interpretation of Christ's teachings, these things only apply to individuals. So nations can lie, steal, blaspheme, etc.? This doesn't make sense to me.

It seemed that you and BonoVoxSupastar were trying to convince 80sU2IsBest that nations should follow the teachings of Christ just as Christian individuals should. I can think of numerous other Biblical laws and commandments that people in this forum would NOT think our governments should follow. I just wanted to find out from the two of you if that is what you were favoring.

Have a great Independence Day!

~U2Alabama

 

[BVS]

It seemed that you and BonoVoxSupastar were trying to convince 80sU2IsBest that nations should follow the teachings of Christ just as Christian individuals should. I can think of numerous other Biblical laws and commandments that people in this forum would NOT think our governments should follow. I just wanted to find out from the two of you if that is what you were favoring.

You are not understanding the point. I'm asking those Christians who believe they can justify this war using scripture, why is it that the teachings of Christ should only apply to the individual and be ignored by nations(especially one ran by a proclaimed born again)? Yet these Christians stand behind such an action. Isn't there a contradiction here? I'm not suppose to act this way as an individual but when my country calls upon me to do this, it's OK...isn't this country before God.

 

[80sU2isBest]

Here's what I'm saying:

That when Christ was talking about turning the other cheek, he was referring specifically to interpersonal relationships. We cannot infer from that that it also pertains to the government. And even if it did, it is not a teaching about violence. It is teaching people not to take revenge. Jesus didn't say that violence is never necessary. In fact, when he sent his disciples out 2 by 2, he told them to take their swords. Now why would he do that? So they could cut pineapples open? No, it was so that they could defend themselves.

 

[BVS]

And even if it did, it is not a teaching about violence. It is teaching people not to take revenge.

And where is this line drawn? How much of the war on terrorism is revenge?

Jesus didn't say that violence is never necessary. In fact, when he sent his disciples out 2 by 2, he told them to take their swords.

He also says; for all those who take up the sword shall perish by the sword." (Matthew 26:52-53)

And what about Matthew 5:20- "For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven."

This to me shows that while the world continues in sin, those who truly believe will trust completely in God and not in your nation.

 

[Angela Harlem]

Good points Disco.

 

[U2Bama]

You are not understanding the point. I'm asking those Christians who believe they can justify this war using scripture, why is it that the teachings of Christ should only apply to the individual and be ignored by nations(especially one ran by a proclaimed born again)? Yet these Christians stand behind such an action. Isn't there a contradiction here? I'm not suppose to act this way as an individual but when my country calls upon me to do this, it's OK...isn't this country before God.

Supastar:

I guess I don't really seeing it as "justify(ing) this war using scripture" as much as I see it as (for me personally) the Bible not expressly forbidding military action by governments. And yes, I do think that an individual Christian can support/agree with the military actions of his/her nation and still be a Christian. For example, I have supported military action on several occasions yet I still consider myself a Christian. And I can truly understand a Christian individual who conscietiously objects to serving his country's military based on religious grounds.

~U2Alabama

 

[Dreadsox]

Sula, I'm not exactly making an assumption, I am reading the passage in context.

That is a dangerous thing to do. Then it cannot be manipulated.

 

[Dreadsox]

Bama, I think you're putting words in people's mouths. While hopefully none of us would advocate the sort of theocracy that many on the far right dream of, it's an undeniable fact of life that one's personal beliefs influence one's politics and the choices one makes. I'm a Christian and because of that fact I would be inclined to vote against a political party that sees violence as the answer to problems. I fail to see how that has anything to do with the separation of church and state.

Ahhh, but here in FYM, there have been numerous threads criticizing the "religious influence" of Christian's on this administration.

Bama's point is well made. When the administration is too religious, they get bashed, when they are not religious enough they get bashed? Or is it just "THIS" administration that everyone loves to hate?

 

[FizzingWhizzbees]

Dread,
I didn't see this thread as being about whether Bush's administration is religious, but rather a discussion about whether Christianity can or should be used as a justification for war. It's not specifically about thet Bush administration if you ask me.

 

[FizzingWhizzbees]

PS - it's nice to see you back here.