|
Post by Areopagite on Nov 20, 2004 16:41:49 GMT -5
Amen Pericles
|
|
|
Post by joelhaldeman on Nov 20, 2004 17:28:34 GMT -5
I dont understand why you would support something you are opposed to. It doesnt sound to me like you are opposed to war at all. How has history proven that war brings about a solution. We have been going to war for thousands of years and where has that brought us? We are still fighting. War brings about war, not peace. Peace brings peace. How often does someone put their life on the line for the cause of peace? The Bush method of trying to peacefully bring about an end to an issue: threaton to bomb them. The Gandhi method: put yourself in danger of death. Maybe if we had more political leaders with courage who are willing to put themselves in the face of danger then there would be less war. History has only shown that the majority of the time, man is too scared to solve things the difficult way. Sure, anyone can drop bombs on iraq. Maybe we cant associate Jesus with politics, but maybe he spoke an answer to many of our problems. Maybe if we fed and clothed our enemies and showed love to them then they wouldnt fly airplanes into our buildings. Maybe if we were kind to the rest of the world then the rest of the world wouldnt hate us, and maybe they would even join our side. Maybe if we tried doing something different then we have in the past people would start to get along. was anyone else taught violence is not the answer?
|
|
|
Post by bobarian on Nov 20, 2004 23:28:02 GMT -5
Joel, lets apply your logic to the Rwandan genocide. If violence cannot be used as a means to solve this problem, then the U.S. was totally justified in doing effectively nothing while hundreds of thousands of people died. There was no non-military to stop this crisis because it was being taken out by a military group of Hutu rebels (I believe I have the correct clan there.)
The problem with your biblical analysis is that Jesus said love your enemy and your neighbor, but He didn't say that we should love our neighbor's enemy. What I mean by that is, if our neighbor is being hurt, then it is our responsibility to protect them because that is what love does ("Love always protects, always perseveres... love never fails.") It is absolutely immoral and unethical and unbiblical to sit by and watch my neighbor being beaten, raped and pillaged because of my "pacifist" and "nonviolent" ideals. When I protect my neighbor, I am acting out of love, not hate.
And we are acting in Iraq out of love, not hate. Bush did not send us to war because of our hatred of Sadam Hussein. He re-iterated time and time again that this was a war of freedom, to bring freedom and democracy to the Middle East. The reason we went there is because we wanted what was best for Iraqis and Americans - a fair, stable and just government in Iraq. And frankly, it wasn't going to happen any other way, because sadistic dictators don't pay much attention to human rights. War is a political end - that is why Jesus never addressed it specifically. He was concerned with social change from the inside out - if everyone loved their neighbor and their enemy, we wouldn't need war.
Because everyone doesn't, we do need it.
That is what the just war theory is for. It is unfounded for John (Linger) to say that real Christians are pacifists when the dominant theory in the Christian church over history has been just war theory, not Christian non-violence. Just war theory says that if an act of aggression is carried out against another state, that state has the right to defend itself (or wage a war.) This war has to be proportionate to the ends (no excessive violence,) discriminate between soldiers and civilians, and be only a last resort. This is the war theory used by Christians to justify war.
Why? Because we love our neighbors. Jesus told us to.
|
|
|
Post by joelhaldeman on Nov 21, 2004 0:03:06 GMT -5
Are you implying that these people are not also our neighbor? As far as i am concerned these people are our neighbor and we are to love them just as we are to love everyone else. Now I do not know a whole lot about the Rawanda situation but i firmly believe that there is always a chance for a resolution without going to war.
Pacifisim is not just sitting by and watching all those terrible things happen. Pacifism is being opposed to a violent solution to the problem. I am all about bringing an end to that situation, just not with a gun in my hand. I firmly believe that where there is a conflict there is a peaceful resolution possible. Now I also and am aware that man is inatly evil and in some cases there will be people who will never change and will continue to invade. In a case such as the Iraq conflict, the issue was within the leadership of the nation. Not in the army. Most of the people in Iraq had been brainwashed. The answer is not to kill all these people, who are no less heros then the American soldiers that died. The answer is to change the leadership, and change the minds of the people. Tell them that we want to help them and bring them freedom. My father is in the 193rd special operations air force. There job is to fly into an area such as Iraq and broadcast to the people that we want to help them. They do this through radio and telivision. His unit is the only unit that does this. They have the only airplanes that are designed to accomplish this task. I know for a fact that there was very little if any of this communications with the people before the bombing and shooting began.
Just because the Just War Theory has been around for a long time doesnt mean it is true. And I see this as nothing more then the church trying to justify a difficult doctrine.
|
|
|
Post by joelhaldeman on Nov 21, 2004 0:20:58 GMT -5
My question is, if the christian church thinks war is okay and is prolife, then why do people get so upset when someone kills an abortion doctor in the name of God. Is abortion not an assult on our people? Why is it wrong to retaliate?
|
|
|
Post by bobarian on Nov 21, 2004 13:48:15 GMT -5
Well, like I said, war (or violence) should only be a last resort. There are certainly other resorts involving political means when it comes to our American political system.
However, that is not a direct application to war because war is conflict between states while abortion is a conflict in a state. Domestic and international politics are very different.
Joel, let me tell you about Rwanda, then, if you are not aware.
There are two tribes in Rwanda, the Hutus and the Tutsis. The Tutsis, although the minority, have traditionally ruled Rwanda. When Rwanda became independent, it gave rise to ethnic clashes between the two groups. A peace accord (the Arusha accords) were brokered in 1993 which put an end to the violence. In 1994, however, the President's jet was hit with a missile (he was a Hutu.) This set off a genocide of various Hutus and Tutsis (people who were considered moderate) by the Hutu militia. A contingent of 2500 troops from the UN had been assigned as "observers" to monitor the peace accords, but when ten Belgians were killed trying to defend the Hutu prime minister, Belgium withdrew its remaining 400 troops which hurt the UN's effectiveness. Of course, since they were observers, the UN could not intervene militarily in the massacres which gave them very little usefulness at all. In addition, Western powers in the UN spent their time debating whether the issue was truly a "genocide" while reports kept on coming in with thousands of people dying each day. The rate of killing in Rwanda was higher than Nazi Germany, and the Rwandans used mostly machetes. Most people were simply hacked to death.
However, the U.S. in particular was afraid of intervening militarily after the fiasco in Somalia (Black Hawk Down.) Thus, we stayed ambiguous until the conflict died down (the Tutsis fought back) and the roughly two and half month genocide had killed 800,000 Tutsis.
800,000 people. Because we were afraid to intervene with our forces. Force used to protect our neighbor is love. To not do so is not love at all.
Love always protects, Joel.
|
|
|
Post by joelhaldeman on Nov 21, 2004 16:15:57 GMT -5
If most of the killing was done with a simple blade then why would it have been so difficult to put troops in the country and physically stop them from hacking people. There are ways of stopping people without the use of deadly weapons. The use of riot gear-tear gas, high pressured water, guns that will stop a person but not kill them, hand cuffs(im not talking bullets, im talking slugs)-all these things the United States has in its major cities and is kept at the army reserves. Prison! Of course we dont want to kill our citizens but its okay to kill other people. Tasers, laser guns, dart guns-some of these things we dont have the technology or large amounts of but if developed over time we could be able to stop a genocide like this. Ill tell you what, drive a tank into the middle of that country and it will surley deter violence. I work public safety here on campus(i know, its lame) and we take classes that are based on the same thing that police officers take. One of the steps before violence is officer presence. This alone is usually enough to stop something from happening. Again we may not have the force to stop a large incident like that but if developed over time we could do it. No, we cannot stop every death but how on earth does a death justify another death? We are all equal.
Now how can you justify that we are protecting one neighbore and not the other. How can we determine what sinner deserves to die and who doesnt. Are we not all totally deprave?
What exactly is the reason for all this violence? Is it a land dispute? Is it something that we could help with?
|
|
|
Post by bobarian on Nov 21, 2004 18:28:04 GMT -5
Joel, I want to say first of all that this is a very productive discussion, one I have been at Wheaton for quite some time... Anyway, I think you groundshifted. You first said that violence is bad, but now you say that violence is ok so long as you don't kill anyone. You essentially agree with me (violence should be used to protect our neighbors.) However, you cannot proscribe the use of violence and not realize that people might die. Tear gas can kill people, and the confusion and chaos such anti-riot weapons cause can kill people as well. Whenever violence is used, the possibility of death is there. Of course, this should be more than obvious since in almost any activity you have the possibility of dying... And like I said, the UN had troops there - the Hutus don't care. Why should they? The Hutus were in control. Domestic and international law are very different things. People in this country respect police officers because we are taught to. That respect is not universal, by any means. Besides, if you drive a tank in, or send troops in, regardless of whether they use force you are still open to casualties - the Hutus will attack you if you try to stop them. So then tear gas and tasers aren't going to do much against people with automatic weapons. You need real firepower -- which is why our armed forces exist. Its quite easy to discriminate on the basis of who is attacking our neighbor and who isn't. If I have two friends, Bill and Bob, and Bob attacks Bill, I will try to stop Bob (and if I have to, use violence.) I wouldn't attack Bill, because it is Bill who is being attacked. That is the principle of protecting (loving) our neighbors. The violence in Rwanda was due to ethnic hatred. There is not much one can do mediate such a dispute peacefully - and certainly, by the time the genocide happened it was far too late for any sort of nonviolent means. We needed to send the U.S. Army in there - but we didn't. We were scared. And hundreds of thousands of people died. While the whole world watched.
|
|
|
Post by joelhaldeman on Nov 21, 2004 20:17:49 GMT -5
I still think that every method should be used to resolve things without violence or killing. I think it is possible to stop an army without the use of body piercing bullets. I know that no matter what happens people are bound to die. I do not think that going into another country with AK's and flame throwers is the way to solve an issue. I do not necessarily consider the use of riot gear violence but i know people may become hurt. I still think war is unbiblical, from my perspective there are many verses that seem to me to say christians should not involve themselves in war and should do anything possible to bring about peace(Matthew 5:7,9,39,44; Matthew 26:52; Romans 12:17-18,20; 1 Corinthians 3:16-17; 2 Corinthians 10:3; Galations 5:22-23; Ephesians 6:12). I think violence is bad but killing someone is worse. I can see how you can be loving and still use violence-maybe. I cannot comprehend when people tell me they are being loving when they kill people in war because there is no chance for repentance.
|
|
pericles
Novice
Advocatus Diaboli
Posts: 55
|
Post by pericles on Nov 21, 2004 21:46:17 GMT -5
I still think that every method should be used to resolve things without violence or killing. I think it is possible to stop an army without the use of body piercing bullets. I know that no matter what happens people are bound to die. I do not think that going into another country with AK's and flame throwers is the way to solve an issue. I do not necessarily consider the use of riot gear violence but i know people may become hurt. I still think war is unbiblical, from my perspective there are many verses that seem to me to say christians should not involve themselves in war and should do anything possible to bring about peace(Matthew 5:7,9,39,44; Matthew 26:52; Romans 12:17-18,20; 1 Corinthians 3:16-17; 2 Corinthians 10:3; Galations 5:22-23; Ephesians 6:12). I think violence is bad but killing someone is worse. I can see how you can be loving and still use violence-maybe. I cannot comprehend when people tell me they are being loving when they kill people in war because there is no chance for repentance. Unfortunately, sometimes non-violent methods just don't work. Remember Tianmen Square? There is the famous picture of one man with his grocery bags stopping a tank column, but there are no usually no pictures shown of people's bodies ground to death under the treads of the same tanks. Non-violence stopped the Chinese army for a while; but ultimately it failed, as it always does against a determined enough foe. Sometimes, to win a war you must fight, and there is no second option. What it really comes down to is that madmen will never listen to reason and pacifism, and there is no making deals with them. If Neville Chamberlain was still alive, you could ask him about how well peace treaties and nonviolence works with madmen - he was one of the signers of the "peace treaty" with Hitler in September of 1938. One year later, the world had erupted into war. And if war is unbiblical, how do you explain its regular occurence in the Old Testament as an activity commanded by God? I know that is the Old Testament, not the New, but we cannot simply throw most of the Bible out of the window simply because it was written earlier. Yes, the beatitudes do say "blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called sons of God," but I might ask you - what is a peacemaker? Weren't the men who fought for the Allies in WW 2 peacemakers, because they brought peace to a world at war? I think so. A man who makes peace is not always one who doesn't fight. Making peace means ending war, and ending war cannot always be done with tasers and tear gas.
|
|
|
Post by joelhaldeman on Nov 21, 2004 23:09:19 GMT -5
First of all i am not interested in "winning" a war i am interested in stopping a war or diverting a war.
Second just because a person standing in front of a tank didnt work once, doesnt mean there isnt other means at bringing about peace. There are unlimited ways of being peacefull.
Standing in front of a madman with a gun may end with him shooting you, but theres nothing stoping you from taking him out from a distance with a tranqualizer. Peacefull means at stopping a crazy person has hardly been explored. You know what has been explored? How to make the largest and most dealdy nuclear bomb.
As for the Old Testament-no where will you find the command to love your enemy. There is a command to love you neighbore but not your enemy. This is why the sermon on the mount is so powerful. Jesus is saying something completly and uderly shocking to the culture at that time. He begins nearly every paragraph with "You have heard it was said.....But I tell you..." The other thing to keep in mind is the nation was commanded directly by God to go to war. God used this as a means to destroying immorality just as he did with the flood and just as he did so many times when the Israelite forsook him. God has the right to take human life. He gives and He takes away.
I can see how you can say that about Matthew 5:7 but I still disagree. I think it is great when people make peace and i think it is great that that war ended but it could have been ended better. please do not ask me for the answer to all the different wars throughout history because I dont have an answer to all of them. What I do know is that if we started thinking differently and people started to get paid to think of peacefull resolutions rather then taking the easy way out and dropping a large bomb on a janese city killing millions of soldier, women, children, and destroying the city, land, and agriculture for years to come.
I dont know what was peacfull about WW2, millions of people died and no one is happy. The leader shot himself in the head. I suppose the war ended and a form of peace resulted but I think that war could have ended without a holocaust and without 2 atomic bombs being dropping in japan and without pearl harbor. It is good that peace resulted but just because something good results doesnt mean the method was good. Take robinhood for example.
|
|
|
Post by joelhaldeman on Nov 21, 2004 23:13:37 GMT -5
For a better example of the contrast between the NT and OT check out Matthew 5:38,39 and compare it to Exodus 21:23-25; Leviticus 24:19-21; and maybe the strongest of all: Deutoronomy 20:21. Gandhi had a nice quote about this-something about making the whole world blind
|
|
|
Post by bobarian on Nov 22, 2004 20:44:51 GMT -5
Joel - first of all, I am really enjoying this discussion. You have some good ideas You can't support both violence and not killing anyone. Whenever you authorize violence you allow for the possibility that people may die. Whether people die from tear gas, riots or bullets makes little difference to me - the point is, violence is evil regardless. And because it is evil, it should only be used as a last resort, when we are forced to, with good goals and with a just cause - defending our neighbors. No one ever wants to kill - it is only, and can only be, a defensive action (from our perspective as humans.) I agree with you on the OT. My point was that God never condemns the Israelites for going to war. You cannot quote me one scripture where God specifically condemns people going to war. That is why it doesn't take "ten seconds." I've already given you analysis on how war and violence supports Jesus' ideals of loving our neighbors - either counter my analysis (Bob and Bill), or your ideas on the sermon on the mount merely support me (because I have shown you how Jesus' teachings actually support the idea of defending our neighbor, not simply letting him die while we do not act because of ideological reasons.) Joel, you have to look at history. Especially when you have such a heart to see that U.S. Foreign policy is just - I admire that deeply. I am not defending the Iraq war, really, or the Hiroshima bomb - I am merely defending war as a just tool when it used as a last resort (the just war theory.) I don't think Hiroshima was just (proportionality - we killed a lot of civilians compared to our ends.) But, we cannot always predict if our actions will be just - I mean, did Truman really know what he was getting into? (Of course, that's a different debate about a different place.) Joel, as someone who is concerned about the U.S. role in the world, you have to be concerned about Rwanda. I saw a documentary on it in international politics that nearly made me cry. Nonviolent means don't work against people who have machetes. Just look at the Palestinian-Israeli conflict - sometimes reason doesn't work. The massacred Rwandans needed someone to step in and help them - to forcibly bring a just peace - and I totally support killing if it would stop the situation. We need to defend the defenseless - whatever that means, whatever the cost. And no, John Linger, I am not a hypocritical Christian. Here I stand, so help me God.
|
|
|
Post by joelhaldeman on Nov 22, 2004 23:49:58 GMT -5
I do not really think that the use of the methods I mentioned are violent. Of course there is a chance people will die but there is always a chance people will die. I still cannot see how anyone can justify the killing of another person. How is it loving when you kill your enemy? The person you are fighting against is your enemy. It doesnt matter if they first attacked you or if they attacked another nation. If you go to war against them then they are the enemy. If you are killing you are not loving. There is no "just" war unless there is a "just" sin.
And I dont care how crazy these people with large knives are. Its still just a sharp peice of metal that is dependant upon the swing of someones arm. If we can put a man on the moon then we can stop a man with a knife without using violence.
|
|
|
Post by Satori on Dec 14, 2004 9:11:23 GMT -5
However, the U.S. in particular was afraid of intervening militarily after the fiasco in Somalia (Black Hawk Down.) Yep, and I think that hides another important point. There was nothing in it for them. Rwanda has nothing the US wanted which probably helps explain why they didn't get involved. Iraq, however, has oil. There are many wholesome reasons why Saddam needed to be deposed, but we mustn't forget that it is financially and politically beneficial for the US to ensure that Iraq is a 'friendly' country (or perhaps 'less unfriendly' would be a better way to put it). Furthermore, we mustn't also forget that the US government conned the public into supporting a war in Iraq with its 'weapons of mass destruction' lie, which raises further questions about the validity of the war in the first place. It would be nice if wars were fought on the 'love thy neighbour' principle but, sadly, they're not - most wars that aren't in defence of ones own land are fought to gain some political or financial weight.
|
|