"No War Is Ever Holy"

[Steven_Merten]

Evan:

That was a time before the fullness of God’s revelation was at hand. God worked with the people of the time.

With the continuing revelation, God has made his message more clear. He can use more effective means to reveal His love of all humanity.

Not all that is in the OT can be used to justify present day actions. We must look to the fullness of revelation in Jesus Christ.

So, first of all, is every one, including Matt, in agreement that what they really mean is “No” war is “Holy” after Jesus Christ? Is everyone, including Matt, saying that there were “Holy” wars, wars commanded by God, in Old Testament?

In our post Christ situation where we have “fullness of God’s revelation” and supposedly now God’s “effective means to reveal His love for all humanity”, what does God think of Vatican Swiss Guard snipper kills"? Do papal Swiss Guard snipper kills fit into this new “fullness of revelation” from Jesus? Do papal Swiss Guard snipper kills fit into Christ’s teachings to offer no resistance to injury?

I read no scriptures from Jesus which condemn war. Please show me where Jesus condemns war, if you can? I do see scripture discussing how individuals should respond if threatened. I do see scriptures from Jesus which could be understood to condemn the papal practice of using Swiss Guard snipper kills for protection.

From behind the protection ofusing Swiss Guard snippers, Pope John Paul II stated, “violence is never the answer”. Was Pope John Paul II practicing the very unholy, evil acts against the “fullness of revelation” which he himself recognized as “violence is never the answer” in his understanding of Jesus’ words “offer no resistance to injury”? Or, do Swiss Guard sniper kills, for the protection of Vatican possessions and the Pope’s life, fit right into Christ’s new teachings on love and turning the other cheek?

NAB MAT 5:35
But what I say to you is: offer no resistance to injury. When a person stikes you on the right cheek, turn and offer him the other.

 

[Jay74]

NAB MAT 5:35
But what I say to you is: offer no resistance to injury. When a person stikes you on the right cheek, turn and offer him the other.

Jesus was instructing individuals how to react to certain situations. He was not instructing nations to “if they blow up New York, offer them Los Angeles,” or “if they murder your son, offer them your daughter,” “if they rape your sister, offer them your wife,” or “if they nuke France, offer them England.”

Blessings.

 

[Steven_Merten]

Jay74:

Jesus was instructing individuals how to react to certain situations. He was not instructing nations to “if they blow up New York, offer them Los Angeles,” or “if they murder your son, offer them your daughter,” “if they rape your sister, offer them your wife,” or “if they nuke France, offer them England.”

Blessings.

Hello Jay,

Matt and others are claiming that everything has now changed since Christ’s teachings. I think they are claiming something like violence is no longer needed to protect one’s self due to “Divine Revelation”.

We all know that it is God through Moses who gave the command to take no revenge, love God and love your neighbor as yourself that Jesus quotes. We all know that Moses, under the command to love neighbor, God and take no revenge, kills to protect the innocent. Now, Posters on this thread are claiming some big new “revelation” from Jesus which supposedly changes everything. Well let them quote where Jesus condemns war so we can see what they are talking about? If they can find scriptures where Jesus tells us not to go to war, that is.

NAB LEV 19:17
"You shall not bear hatred for your brother in your heart. Though you may have to reprove your fellow man, do not incur sin because of him. Take no revenge and cherish no grudge against your fellow countrymen. You shall love your neighbor as yourself. I am the LORD."

 

[koda]

In the OT it was okay to hate your enemy but this teaching changed when Jesus said in Matthew:

“You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I say to you, love your enemies, and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be children of your heavenly Father, for he makes his sun rise on the bad and the good, and causes rain to fall on the just and the unjust.
For if you love those who love you, what recompense will you have? Do not the tax collectors do the same? And if you greet your brothers only, what is unusual about that? Do not the pagans do the same? So be perfect, just as your heavenly Father is perfect.”

After all, it is people who make up nations so how can nations be exempt from the law?

Please show me a place where Jesus condones war.

 

[Steven_Merten]

koda:

In the OT it was okay to hate your enemy but this teaching changed when Jesus said in Matthew:

“You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I say to you, love your enemies, and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be children of your heavenly Father, for he makes his sun rise on the bad and the good, and causes rain to fall on the just and the unjust.
For if you love those who love you, what recompense will you have? Do not the tax collectors do the same? And if you greet your brothers only, what is unusual about that? Do not the pagans do the same? So be perfect, just as your heavenly Father is perfect.”

After all, it is people who make up nations so how can nations be exempt from the law?

Please show me a place where Jesus condones war.

Hello Koda,

So is America loosing the blood of her sons and daughters in combat because America hates the Iraqie people or out of love for the Iraqie people?

Has the freely ellected Iraqie government or it’s people asked America to stop the war and leave? Do the majority of Iraqies hate America for being there?

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Matt25:

Would you evacuate your city if al Quaeda threatened to destroy a city somewhere sometime?

It depends on a lot of things. The thought of leaving my city has entered my mind more often in the past few years than ever before. Having said that I stuck it out during the SARS episode and that was really difficult. At the time it was happening we had no idea how far it would go.

We were aware of nurse casualties. We could – and still cannot – enter a hospital without going through a monitoring and handwashing protocol. Now the monitoring is self-monitoring. Before there were interviewers and you could not enter if you did not pass the questioning.

If I thought an attack was imminent, yes I would leave. If Al Qu’eda dropped leaflets, I would be gone in a heartbeat. If my daughter-in-law in another city told me that leaflets had been dropped in her city, I would be gone in a shot.

But really this is apples and oranges. I do not live in a Bushido society. The folks in 1945 Japan did.

 

[Jay74]

Steven Merten:

So is America loosing the blood of her sons and daughters in combat because America hates the Iraqie people or out of love for the Iraqie people?

I think its obvious we don’t hate the Iraqi people. We are going far out of our way to keep the number of civilian casualties at a minimum, and we are expending a great deal of resources towards building a free country. That certainly isn’t hatred.

The love for Iraqi people is not quite right. Cops don’t risk their lives for strangers out of love for them, but out of love for justice and/or hatred of crime. Our military isn’t quite like cops, but the essential point is the same.

As President John F. Kennedy said “Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, to ensure the survival and the success of liberty.”

Basically, President Kennedy understood that the success of liberty was vital. President Bush understands the same. It hit home hard on 9/11 how dangerous the lack of liberty in the Middle East is to life and liberty on this end of the globe, and thus to the world. Things are tough now, but we have no chance at ending Islamic terrorism if we don’t drain the swap of the Middle East tyrannies. We can debate whether Iraq was the best move, but the fact that we need to bring liberty and freedom to the Middle East remains.

Are some wars holy? Depends on your definition of “holy,” but many are moral–just as Iraq is.

 

[koda]

Steven Merten:

Hello Koda,

So is America loosing the blood of her sons and daughters in combat because America hates the Iraqie people or out of love for the Iraqie people?

Has the freely ellected Iraqie government or it’s people asked America to stop the war and leave? Do the majority of Iraqies hate America for being there?

I honestly don’t think it’s that black and white. How many innocent civilians are dying or being maimed because of us (I’ve heard members of the military admit that we are responsible for a lot of civilian deaths)? How many is too many? 1? 1,000? Who decides? Are we going to end war or is this just self-perpetuating? I don’t have a simple answer. No one wants to die, no one wants to be mistreated. Would I fight to save your life if I was standing by and you were attacked? Yes, I would. Yet I don’t see how we can square this with what Jesus taught - love your enimies can’t mean kill your enemies. I realize that non-violence will leave a lot of us dead. What did he mean by "You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. But I say to you, offer no resistance to one who is evil. When someone strikes you on (your) right cheek, turn the other one to him as well. " if not non-violence? As long as two people are willing to fight there will always be violence. It has to stop somewhere, even if we pay the ultimate price. But our reward will be great in heaven and that’s our ultimate goal, right? I admit, I’m very confused on the subject - it sometimes keeps me awake at night. My answer is to pray. Any enlightenment you would care to share will be appreciated.

 

[Steven_Merten]

Jay74:

I think its obvious we don’t hate the Iraqi people. We are going far out of our way to keep the number of civilian casualties at a minimum, and we are expending a great deal of resources towards building a free country. That certainly isn’t hatred.

The love for Iraqi people is not quite right. Cops don’t risk their lives for strangers out of love for them, but out of love for justice and/or hatred of crime. Our military isn’t quite like cops, but the essential point is the same.

As President John F. Kennedy said “Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, to ensure the survival and the success of liberty.”

Basically, President Kennedy understood that the success of liberty was vital. President Bush understands the same. It hit home hard on 9/11 how dangerous the lack of liberty in the Middle East is to life and liberty on this end of the globe, and thus to the world. Things are tough now, but we have no chance at ending Islamic terrorism if we don’t drain the swap of the Middle East tyrannies. We can debate whether Iraq was the best move, but the fact that we need to bring liberty and freedom to the Middle East remains.

Are some wars holy? Depends on your definition of “holy,” but many are moral–just as Iraq is.

When an American soldier dies for love of country, I believe he is not dying for love of the land in America, its resourses or it’s government. I believe American soldiers dying for love of country means that they are dying for thier love of the body of people. They die in order to protect the body of people as a whole. I greatfully thank them for their heroic gift of love to me, my family, my fellow Americans and the world.

Peace in Christ,
Steven

 

[Jay74]

Steven Merten:

When an American soldier dies for love of country, I believe he is not dying for love of the land in America, its resourses or it’s government. I believe American soldiers dying for love of country means that they are dying for thier love of the body of people. They die in order to protect the body of people as a whole. I greatfully thank them for their heroic gift of love to me, my family, my fellow Americans and the world.

Peace in Christ,
Steven

I couldn’t agree more.

Last year, I was assigned the task of auditing someone who was about to leave for Iraq. We weren’t friends, and as an auditor, I doubt I was someone he was happy to see. Today, I sent him an email to make sure he made it home safely, and I thanked him very sincerely for risking his very life for the our country and good of the world.

Blessings.

 

[Jay74]

koda:

I honestly don’t think it’s that black and white. How many innocent civilians are dying or being maimed because of us (I’ve heard members of the military admit that we are responsible for a lot of civilian deaths)? How many is too many? 1? 1,000? Who decides? Are we going to end war or is this just self-perpetuating? I don’t have a simple answer. No one wants to die, no one wants to be mistreated. Would I fight to save your life if I was standing by and you were attacked? Yes, I would. Yet I don’t see how we can square this with what Jesus taught - love your enimies can’t mean kill your enemies. I realize that non-violence will leave a lot of us dead. What did he mean by "You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. But I say to you, offer no resistance to one who is evil. When someone strikes you on (your) right cheek, turn the other one to him as well. " if not non-violence? As long as two people are willing to fight there will always be violence. It has to stop somewhere, even if we pay the ultimate price. But our reward will be great in heaven and that’s our ultimate goal, right? I admit, I’m very confused on the subject - it sometimes keeps me awake at night. My answer is to pray. Any enlightenment you would care to share will be appreciated.

It is a very tough subject. A question that one day our blessed Lord will return and answer once and for all.

 

[Steven_Merten]

koda:

I As long as two people are willing to fight there will always be violence.

It has to stop somewhere, even if we pay the ultimate price. But our reward will be great in heaven and that’s our ultimate goal, right? I admit, I’m very confused on the subject - it sometimes keeps me awake at night. My answer is to pray. Any enlightenment you would care to share will be appreciated.

Your equation is distorted. It should read as long as one person is willing to kill there will always be violence.

I don’t recall to many of the holocaust Jews putting up a fight, not a meaningfull fight against their nazi guards with machine guns.

From what I saw of the Serb atrocities in Kosovo, it was just Serb tanks rolling through unarmed towns spewing out bullets and shells on defensless men, women and children.

I think you put far to much emphasis on “two” in your analogy.

I am all for sacrificing the life of my Pope if he believes in his pacifist cause enough to send his Swiss Guard guys back to Switzerland so the Pope can obey Jesus as he sees fit.

“It has to stop somewhere, even if (the Pope) pay the ultimate price. But (his) reward will be great in heaven and that’s (his) ultimate goal, right?”

 

[Steven_Merten]

koda:

As long as two people are willing to fight there will always be violence.

Hello Koda,

I just wanted to post a P.S.

I always thought it the gravest injustice as to what grade school principals reffered to as “fighting”. A bully twice a kids size comes over and knocks his victim to the ground and stands their kicking him, punching him and spiting on him. Then the teacher comes over and the “two” are taken to the office for “fighting”. Total injustice!

Just a pet peave of mine.

Peace in Christ,
Steven Merten

 

[Jay74]

Steven Merten:

Your equation is distorted. It should read as long as one person is willing to kill there will always be violence.

Very good point. Abel wasn’t willing to kill, Cain was. It only took one.

In a more drastic case, Hitler killed 6 million Jews (2 of 3 in Europe!). If it wasn’t for his enemies’ willingness to fight, it would have been all 9 million.

The question is knowing when to fight back. If someone punches you, turning the other cheek is an option. If someone starts shooting at your family, and you have a chance to kill him, then not doing so will kill not only yourself but your wife and kids–non-violence is not much of an option.

As tough as it may seem, there is a just use for violence, including war. After all, evil people won’t give up violence–at least not willingly. and they would rejoice if all “good” people did.

Blessings

 

[Jay74]

Steven Merten:

Hello Koda,

I just wanted to post a P.S.

I always thought it the gravest injustice as to what grade school principals reffered to as “fighting”. A bully twice a kids size comes over and knocks his victim to the ground and stands their kicking him, punching him and spiting on him. Then the teacher comes over and the “two” are taken to the office for “fighting”. Total injustice!

Just a pet peave of mine.

Peace in Christ,
Steven Merten

We had that policy in my grade school, over 20 years ago. Its worse than injustice. It is punishing the victim–twice. And treating the perpetrator and the victim the same sends the wrong message.

 

[Steven_Merten]

Jay74:

The question is knowing when to fight back. If someone punches you, turning the other cheek is an option. If someone starts shooting at your family, and you have a chance to kill him, then not doing so will kill not only yourself but your wife and kids–non-violence is not much of an option.

Blessings

Hello Jay,

**NAB LUK 22:35 **

“…And the man without a sword must sell his coat and buy one.”

wasn’t about duck hunting.

 

[koda]

Steven Merten:

Your equation is distorted. It should read as long as one person is willing to kill there will always be violence.

I don’t recall to many of the holocaust Jews putting up a fight, not a meaningfull fight against their nazi guards with machine guns.

From what I saw of the Serb atrocities in Kosovo, it was just Serb tanks rolling through unarmed towns spewing out bullets and shells on defensless men, women and children.

I think you put far to much emphasis on “two” in your analogy.

I am all for sacrificing the life of my Pope if he believes in his pacifist cause enough to send his Swiss Guard guys back to Switzerland so the Pope can obey Jesus as he sees fit.

“It has to stop somewhere, even if (the Pope) pay the ultimate price. But (his) reward will be great in heaven and that’s (his) ultimate goal, right?”

Point taken: scrap the “two”. But I still don’t see anthing in the Gospels that can be taken as Jesus’ okay on war - all I see is the exact opposite. Do you not think that it is possible that he really meant us to be non-violent? That he was telling us that only when we refused to fight would war ever end? Yes, this would bring great injustice on those who didn’t fight, as well as the ones they could protect if they would fight. But again and again Jesus tells us not to build our kingdom in this world. Maybe he means that the things of this world aren’t worth killing for. We may be martyrs but we’d be in good company. Now, please don’t come back at me with do I think Jesus wants innocents to suffer - of course not. But he sent us as sheep among wolves and I think that the injustice and suffering for righteousness in this world are just part of the bargain. Again, these are just my thoughts - I don’t claim to be right.

 

[Steven_Merten]

koda:

Point taken: scrap the “two”. But I still don’t see anthing in the Gospels that can be taken as Jesus’ okay on war - all I see is the exact opposite. Do you not think that it is possible that he really meant us to be non-violent? That he was telling us that only when we refused to fight would war ever end? Yes, this would bring great injustice on those who didn’t fight, as well as the ones they could protect if they would fight. But again and again Jesus tells us not to build our kingdom in this world. Maybe he means that the things of this world aren’t worth killing for. We may be martyrs but we’d be in good company. Now, please don’t come back at me with do I think Jesus wants innocents to suffer - of course not. But he sent us as sheep among wolves and I think that the injustice and suffering for righteousness in this world are just part of the bargain. Again, these are just my thoughts - I don’t claim to be right.

Hello Koda,

If some men came to attack Mary, would Jesus call upon His disiples to draw their swords to protect her or put their swords down and stand by idle while she is defiled, beaten and her body torn to pieces? If you say Jesus would tell them to just stand by idle and let the evil be done to her, then why have Popes, out of love and respect for Mary, not done the same for their own protection?

 

[Writer]

koda:

I honestly don’t think it’s that black and white. How many innocent civilians are dying or being maimed because of us (I’ve heard members of the military admit that we are responsible for a lot of civilian deaths)? How many is too many? 1? 1,000? Who decides? Are we going to end war or is this just self-perpetuating? I don’t have a simple answer. No one wants to die, no one wants to be mistreated. Would I fight to save your life if I was standing by and you were attacked? Yes, I would. Yet I don’t see how we can square this with what Jesus taught - love your enimies can’t mean kill your enemies. I realize that non-violence will leave a lot of us dead. What did he mean by "You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. But I say to you, offer no resistance to one who is evil. When someone strikes you on (your) right cheek, turn the other one to him as well. " if not non-violence? As long as two people are willing to fight there will always be violence. It has to stop somewhere, even if we pay the ultimate price. But our reward will be great in heaven and that’s our ultimate goal, right? I admit, I’m very confused on the subject - it sometimes keeps me awake at night. My answer is to pray. Any enlightenment you would care to share will be appreciated.

Here is a copy of a letter to the editor of mine from a magazine called Christianity Today, which begins to address your question.

---

**Regarding your article *Rethinking Pacifism, *it seems that the inherent dilemma with pacifism becomes clear when the Christian widens the intended scope and meaning of “turn the other cheek” (Matthew 5:39) to refer even to nations attempting to defend themselves against hideous aggression. The verse appears to be focused primarily on our personal endeavors, our daily life. When the verse is erroneously used to support pacifism at all costs by a country and an entire society, it ignores the context and spirit of the passage. It also pushes aside any recognition of verses urging us to support our leaders and reminding us that they are placed there by God, and they are there for our protection from a depraved world (Proverbs 20:26, Matthew 22:21, Mark 12:17, Luke 20:25, Romans 13:1). While peace is certainly our prayer and hope, we cannot ignore the reality of evil in the world.

It must be pointed out that pacifism has a history of failure, and it is dangerous ground for the Christian to be standing upon. For those who point to Gandhi as an instance of successful pacifism, for example, it should be noted that Gandhi’s techniques only could work with a country such as England, a country that respected the value of human life. Based on the attacks we have suffered thus far, it is clear that the followers of Osama Bin Laden value only death. To those that demand peace at all costs, didn’t you learn anything from pre-World War II appeasement? These pacifists should study the writings of historians such as Paul Johnson and theologians such as Dietrich Bonhoeffer. In fact, the article ends with a statement that is reminiscent of Bonhoeffer. Ron Mock, of George Fox, notes that he also would probably have joined with the brave passengers of Flight 93 over Pennsylvania in attempting to wrest the jet from the hijackers. This honest admission is key to why diplomacy and pacifism alone are regrettably not always the best choices for the Christian when it comes to the protection of a nation and its people. It is my hope and prayer that the US can face this enemy with courage and resourcefulness and remember that we do not seek revenge, but we seek justice for the fallen and the death terrorism.

 

[Matt25]

Steven Merten:

If some men came to attack Mary, would Jesus call upon His disiples to draw their swords to protect her or put their swords down and stand by idle while she is defiled, beaten and her body torn to pieces?

These are not the only two options.

What did Jesus do when they came to torture and murder him?

If our Lord washed the feet of Judas knowing that he was about to betray him does or does that not set an example for all of us?