Does Christian Doctrine support or condemn war?

[Quarkhead]

Do you feel that Christianity preaches a doctrine which justifies war? Specifically, the war in Iraq, and the War on Terror? Why or why not?

[bernee51]

We are fighting terrorists in Iraq.

No - you are fighting Iraqis. Not all Iraqis, in fact very few if any, are terrorists. There has been no proven links between Hussein's regime and the major terrorist networks. All of these are mainly based/financed/supported by the US 'ally' Saudi Arabia.

Claiming that the Iraqi War was fighting terrorism is part of the big lie, along with WMD (what WMD?), to justify a preemptive strike.

How can you say that it is not directly related to the War on Terror?

How can you say it is directly related? Because the government told you and the government wouldn't lie?

Did Saddam Hussein not kill his own people with nerve gas?

A long time ago, using technology supplied by the West. What does this have to do with international terrorism?

Have we not found rape rooms? etc.

Ditto

So you are saying that we have to wait and let the terrorists surround our country before we can do anything? Where is that written?

Which Iraqi's were surrounding the UsofA?

You haven't proven where my position violates Romans 13:1-4 which is the Christian perspective on war regarding the state.

Why should a book of myth and metaphor be used as an example for whether or not killing other human beings, many of whom are 'collateral damage', is justified

[Biblestudent]

bernee 51 wrote on February I would like to emphasise respect for the opinion of others and gratitude that it is being offered - even (especially?) when it appears diametrically opposed to my own.

I know from experience this is often difficult , but challenges are there to aid growth.

[Biblestudent]

bernee 51 wrote these responses to Scott on February 2, 2005 at 4:58 am:

Scott wrote: "We are fighting terrorists."

bernee 51:

No - you are fighting Iraqis. Not all Iraqis, in fact very few if any, are terrorists. There has been no proven links between Hussein's regime and the major terrorist networks. All of these are mainly based/financed/supported by the US 'ally' Saudi Arabia.

My response to bernee 51:
Would this be the Iraqi's with purple fingers, the one's rejoicing in the streets on election day? To which Iraqis are you referring? Are you including Osama Bin Laden in this group of Saudis? If so, I agree. Otherwise, where's your proof?

b51:Claiming that the Iraqi War was fighting terrorism is part of the big lie, along with WMD (what WMD?), to justify a preemptive strike.

My response to bernee 51:
What is the "big lie"? I'm not sure what you mean by that? I can see that you have taken the bait from our liberal, socialist media that the only reason we went into Iraq was because of WMD. It was not. Remember the over 15 UN resolutions?

Scott Perry wrote:

How can you say that it [War in Iraq]is not directly related to the War on Terror?

b51:How can you say it is directly related? Because the government told you and the government wouldn't lie?

My response to bernee 51:
We are fighting terrorists. You haven't proven we are fighting good Iraqi citizens as you are wanting to present it.

Scott Perry wrote:

Did Saddam Hussein not kill his own people with nerve gas?

b51:A long time ago, using technology supplied by the West. What does this have to do with international terrorism?

My response to bernee 51:
I guess killing people with nerve gas is ok as long as you did a long time ago. Your right, this would be more like "national" terrorism.
Scott Perry wrote:

Have we not found rape rooms? etc.

b51:Ditto

My response to bernee 51:

Doesn't "ditto" break one of the debate rules?

Scott Perry wrote:

So you are saying that we have to wait and let the terrorists surround our country before we can do anything? Where is that written?

b51:Which Iraqi's were surrounding the UsofA?

My response to bernee 51:

Your still assuming something you haven't proven.

Scott Perry wrote:

You haven't proven where my position violates Romans 13:1-4 which is the Christian perspective on war regarding the state.

b51:Why should a book of myth and metaphor be used as an example for whether or not killing other human beings, many of whom are 'collateral damage', is justified

My repsonse to bernee 51:
Proof? Namely, that the Bible is myth and metaphor would be nice. Examples is another debate rule. "Collateral damage" are your words, not mine.

9 minutes later, at 5:07 a.m. on February 2, 2005, after bernee 51 had responded to my post, he wrote this on a thread regarding how to remain civil during debates:


I would like to emphasise respect for the opinion of others and gratitude that it is being offered - even (especially?) when it appears diametrically opposed to my own.

I know from experience this is often difficult , but challenges are there to aid growth.

Well, bernee 51, I guess you have some growing to do.

Thanks for your response.

Scott

[Dilettante]

Scott Perry wrote:

We are fighting terrorists in Iraq. How can you say that it is not directly related to the War on Terror? Did Saddam Hussein not kill his own people with nerve gas? Have we not found rape rooms? etc. What is your evidence?

So you are saying that we have to wait and let the terrorists surround our country before we can do anything? Where is that written?


You haven't proven where my position violates Romans 13:1-4 which is the Christian perspective on war regarding the state.

I said that the Iraqi invasion was not connected with the War on Terror because, despite the popular misconception (in the US only) that Saddam had ties to Al Quaida and/or had been connected with the Sept. 11 attacks, there is no evidence that he ever was. It seems pretty clear now that the American government encouraged people's belief that Saddam was somehow in cahoots with Bin Laden, just as they misled the public into believing the Nigerian Uranium story and the WMD story, to make Saddam appear more dangerous than he really was. But the fact that a belief is widespread doesn't make it true. Of course I'm happy that Saddam is gone, and there may have been other reasons for the invasion, but the ones I just mentioned turned out to be "not true". And it was precisely those reasons that were most prominently used to sell the war to the American public.
For more info on this, check out
http://www.spinsanity.org/columns/20030320.html
and also
http://www.spinsanity.org/columns/20030404.html
and if you're up to some more:
http://www.spinsanity.org/topics/#Iraq

There is simply no evidence that there were any active terrorists in Iraq prior to the invasion --especially true of islamist terrorists, because Saddam was a secularist and a sworn enemy of religious fundamentalism.
Of course, after the invasion and the subsequent power vacuum, terrorists did pour into Iraq. But even then, not all of the insurgents can be characterized as terrorists, but only those whose target are civilians.

As for terrorists threatening the US, most of these came from Saudi Arabia. Not one of the Sept. 11 terrorists was an Iraqi.

And no, the Just War Theory does not cover preemptive strikes because preemptive strikes are not considered self-defense by Just War theorists. Again, Saddam might have considered attacking the US (he seemed crazy enough) if he had had the means to do it, but according to UN inspectors he didn't have those means. For an overview of the conditions for a Just War, see:
http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/pol116/justwar.htm

Reading Romans 13 someone could reach the following conclusion: Paul is telling Christians to support the status quo. He says rulers derive their power from God. He doesn't say "democratic rulers" or even "just rulers". Saddam Hussein was the ruler of Iraq at the time. So, according to Romans 13 his power was God-given and he shouldn't have been deposed. Of course this is only one of many possible interpretations. I personally don't think Paul would have thought much of Saddam. He may even not have considered Saddam's government duly-constituted authority. But Paul was not thinking about modern dictators when he wrote those lines. He was merely trying to separate himself and the early Christians from the Jewish Zealots. His aim was to prove to the Roman authorities that Christianity was not a threat to the Empire and that, as such, it should be tolerated. Paul's idea that rulers were divinely sanctioned fits with the Roman idea of the Emperor-god. (See Paul Johnson's History of Christianity, New York, Touchstone 1995, p. 170). There is nothing in that text which suggests to me he was expressing the Christian perspective on war, let alone on international conflicts. Where did you get that idea?

[seventil]

I'll quote C.S. Lewis on what I think of war:

"Safety and happiness can only come from individuals, classes, and nations being honest and fair and kind to each other."

That sounds like Jesus to me. If everyone took that to heart, there would be no war. I know it sounds naive and utopian; but that's the recipe for world peace.

Just like JC says; Love God, and love everyone else. Everything should be done in love.

Looking around... most the stuff we do isn't out of love.

[potwalloper.]

Scott Perry wrote

We are fighting terrorists in Iraq. How can you say that it is not directly related to the War on Terror? Did Saddam Hussein not kill his own people with nerve gas? Have we not found rape rooms? etc. What is your evidence?

Hi Scott Perry

I would be very interested in your definition of a terrorist.

If an aggressive country invaded America, murdered large numbers of women and children, killed members of the Senate and the Congress, imprisoned your President and imposed martial law would you fight against them?

If you decided to fight against them would you be a terrorist or a freedom fighter?

Were the French Resistance terrorists when they fought against the Nazi occupation of France?

The USA has invaded Iraq without any direct aggressive action on the part of Iraq to justify this action. They have killed or imprisoned the existing government and killed innocent men, women and children whilst going about it (see http://www.iraqbodycount.net/ ) and have imposed their own rule over Iraq citizens.

I am not, in any way, trying to defend the position of Saddam, however the facts are the facts. The classification of those within Iraq as terrorists, when they are fighting what they perceive to be a foreign invasion, appears to me to be purely arbitrary - you call them terrorists because they are fighting you. If they had been fighting the Russians in a similar situation(such as Afghanistan) you would have called them freedom fighters and supported them - as indeed the USA did when it supported Bin Laden in his conflict with USSR invaders.

I find it ironic that you refer to Saddam gassing his citizens when the US gave him the technology to facilitate this when he had not yet fallen out of favour!

So you are saying that we have to wait and let the terrorists surround our country before we can do anything? Where is that written?

Well...it would take rather a large number of terrorists to surround America.

Do you really believe that the USA was at any time in danger of being invaded or attacked in any significant way? Yes a lot of people died in 9/11 and it was shocking. One child dies every 15 seconds from the lack of clean water in the third world - that is also shocking. More people died from firearms accidents in the USA last year than were killed in 9/11 - that is also shocking. Many things are shocking - they do not warrant the suspension of international law and the invasion of a country that does not appear to have had any links to AQ at all and which was not developing any WMDs that could have threatened the USA's interests (access to oil aside, of course)...

When one country decides to replace the regime of another purely on the grounds that they have greater military power then we are on the slippery slope to dictatorship and imperialism.

Ask people in Muslim countries who are the terrorists in Iraq - you would probably not like the answer...

[Dilettante]

seventil wrote:

Just like JC says; Love God, and love everyone else. Everything should be done in love.

That would be wonderful, seventil. But yes, it does sound naive and utopian to me. First, because we all have a different idea of love. Often what we think is best for others is not what those others think is best for themselves.
Augustine said "Love and do whatever you want". Unfortunately it's not that simple. Lots of religious leaders of the past (and present) sincerely loved God, yet persecuted heretics with great zeal also. The most shocking aspect of it is that often they seemed to believe that they were doing those "poor souls" a great favor by providing them with an opportunity to repent and return to the true faith before execution. They beleive they were saving their eternal souls and those of their would-be followers by executing them. Sounds like Alice-in-Wonderland logic, but it's true.
The only recipe for world peace that I can think of is the abolition of all forms of culture. War is a feature of human culture and civilization. But who is prepared to abandon culture?

[Biblestudent]

I said that the Iraqi invasion was not connected with the War on Terror because, despite the popular misconception (in the US only) that Saddam had ties to Al Quaida and/or had been connected with the Sept. 11 attacks, there is no evidence that he ever was.

The UN Oil for Food Program scandal may shed more light on this. Conservative estimates indicate that Saddam was able to divert 21 billion dollars. To whom? Also, connections have been made between Hussein's government and Al-Quaida (World Net Daily, Enemies Within). The terrorists cannot operate without money. Saddam was a proven murderer of his own people, and he invaded Kuwait. He should have been removed during the first Gulf War. This man's history must be taken into account. Namely, that he was capable of doing more or even worse than he had before. However, no new evidence was needed to remove him. If so, what would it take to convince you? I know that you are glad he was removed, so how would you have done it differently? Do you think a terrorist dictator can be reasoned with through Arab translators?

It seems pretty clear now that the American government encouraged people's belief that Saddam was somehow in cahoots with Bin Laden, just as they misled the public into believing the Nigerian Uranium story and the WMD story, to make Saddam appear more dangerous than he really was.

Are you saying that the American government is dishonest in their motives? Or that they were deceived by intelligence reports? Or what?
Do you think that our government officials are war mongers, and that we want to impose our will on the world?

Of course I'm happy that Saddam is gone, and there may have been other reasons for the invasion, but the ones I just mentioned turned out to be "not true". And it was precisely those reasons that were most prominently used to sell the war to the American public.

Our President went repeatedly to the UN to encourage them to enforce the 19 UN resolutions that Hussein defied. What we did was not in haste. After we were attacked, we made it clear that the Axis of Evil would be dealt with. We are following through with the only possible solution to terrorism on a global scale. Eradication. They cannot be reasoned with. The UN has proven to be a useless organization in creating peace throughout the world. This is becoming more evident all the time (Sudan). The liberal media loves to shed the light only on the negative side of our liberation of the Iraqi people.

There is simply no evidence that there were any active terrorists in Iraq prior to the invasion --especially true of islamist terrorists, because Saddam was a secularist and a sworn enemy of religious fundamentalism.
Of course, after the invasion and the subsequent power vacuum, terrorists did pour into Iraq. But even then, not all of the insurgents can be characterized as terrorists, but only those whose target are civilians.

We are not going to allow terrorists to build networks all over the world that will eventually reach our shores again. We are not trying to impose our will on anybody. We are dealing with a global war on terror against an Axis of Evil governments. This necessitates fighting them somewhere at sometime. We are not going to let it escalate like the UN would (by never enforcing their resolutions) to the point where we are fighting it only here in America because of some Just War Theory that says we can't hit anybody until they hit us first. The Iraqi people are electing their own democratic government. Our war is not against them.

Reading Romans 13 someone could reach the following conclusion: Paul is telling Christians to support the status quo. He says rulers derive their power from God. He doesn't say "democratic rulers" or even "just rulers". Saddam Hussein was the ruler of Iraq at the time. So, according to Romans 13 his power was God-given and he shouldn't have been deposed.

Paul is pointing out that government is good when used properly, "rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil works" (Romans 13:3). How are they a terror if they never enforce the laws? God has established the authority of government to minister to man's need. Government helps us do good (13:4). The Bible is a self-interpreting book, other passages must be considered. Christians understand God would not approve of an evil government like Hussein's, as you have suggested, because Acts 5:29 points out God is to be obeyed when government (Sandhedrin in this case) conflicts with His intended will. So your attempted parallel is false. "But," he said, "If you do evil... then what? "He bears not the sword (ability to enforce good authority) in vain. Has Hussein not done enough evil to be removed?

His aim was to prove to the Roman authorities that Christianity was not a threat to the Empire and that, as such, it should be tolerated. Paul's idea that rulers were divinely sanctioned fits with the Roman idea of the Emperor-god. (See Paul Johnson's History of Christianity, New York, Touchstone 1995, p. 170). There is nothing in that text which suggests to me he was expressing the Christian perspective on war, let alone on international conflicts. Where did you get that idea?

I agree Christianity is no real threat to anybody, except evil people, and that threat is spiritual death, not physical. I don't understand what you mean by "fits the Roman idea of an Emperor-god"? Are you saying Paul somehow credited that Roman belief? What Paul said is Christian doctrine, which is what this post is about. He is pointing out God's will on the subject, "there is no power but of God;" "whoever resists, resists the power of God;" "he is the minister of God;" (Romans 13:1-4). And you say there is "nothing" in the text that suggests to you that it is God's will on war?" Was not the Roman Empire, to which Paul was referring, an "international" organization? Yet, it has no application to "international conflicts?" Come now.

[potwalloper.]

Scott Perry wrote

The UN Oil for Food Program scandal may shed more light on this. Conservative estimates indicate that Saddam was able to divert 21 billion dollars. To whom? Also, connections have been made between Hussein's government and Al-Quaida (World Net Daily, Enemies Within).

There is no evidence that Saddam had any links to AQ beyond those which Americans now seek to create to justify their illegal actions in Iraq.

Saddam was a proven murderer of his own people

And was supported by the Americans while he was carrying out that murder and the use of chemical weapons in the Iran-Iraq war...

Do you think a terrorist dictator can be reasoned with through Arab translators?

So what is a terrorist dictator? One who uses force to apply his views and wishes on others? One who murders people to achieve his aims? One who slaughters innocent men, women and children with impunity?

Sounds like George Bush to me. 15612 civilians have been murdered through American military action in Iraq since the war began.

Are you saying that the American government is dishonest in their motives?

Most certainly. Dishonest and cynical in the way they decieved their own people and those in other countries.

Do you think that our government officials are war mongers, and that we want to impose our will on the world?

Yes. Warmongers and criminals - who will never be brought to justice because of America's military might.

Our President went repeatedly to the UN to encourage them to enforce the 19 UN resolutions that Hussein defied. What we did was not in haste. After we were attacked, we made it clear that the Axis of Evil would be dealt with. We are following through with the only possible solution to terrorism on a global scale. Eradication. They cannot be reasoned with. The UN has proven to be a useless organization in creating peace throughout the world. This is becoming more evident all the time (Sudan). The liberal media loves to shed the light only on the negative side of our liberation of the Iraqi people.

Your president deliberately and cynically disregarded international law and waged war against a country that was no direct threat to any American interests except the middle-east oil supply. He should be tried for murder...

We are not going to allow terrorists to build networks all over the world that will eventually reach our shores again. We are not trying to impose our will on anybody. We are dealing with a global war on terror against an Axis of Evil governments.

You are trying to impose your will and your values upon everybody. Period.

...and for "evil" read "Islamic" (as viewed by Americans)

This necessitates fighting them somewhere at sometime. We are not going to let it escalate like the UN would (by never enforcing their resolutions) to the point where we are fighting it only here in America because of some Just War Theory that says we can't hit anybody until they hit us first.

In other words "might is right". Why not simply establish an American Empire and have done with it?

[bernee51]

I can see that you have taken the bait from our liberal, socialist media that the only reason we went into Iraq was because of WMD.

Which is worse - the 'liberal socialist media' or the propaganda machine of government information services (and Fox News }

It was not. Remember the over 15 UN resolutions?

Fine - UN Resolutions are OK when you agree with them. What about all the UN resolutions condemning the Israeli invasion of Palestine and request to withdraw that the the US Govt for decades has ignored?

We are fighting terrorists. You haven't proven we are fighting good Iraqi citizens as you are wanting to present it.

You haven't shown any terrorists. Most of the casualties I've sen have been inncoent men, women and children.

I guess killing people with nerve gas is ok as long as you did a long time ago.

No at all - I think it was an horrendous act and roundly condemn it. It was, however, of no threat to the good 'ol USofA. Especially given Hussein destroyed all his chemical weapons after GW1

Doesn't "ditto" break one of the debate rules?

Cute - your avoidance was noted.

Your still assuming something you haven't proven.

You were assuming something that didn't exist.

Proof? Namely, that the Bible is myth and metaphor would be nice.

It is a book of myth and metaphor for the same reason as the Koran, or the Bhagvad Gita. Do you claim it is not?

Examples is another debate rule. "Collateral damage" are your words, not mine.

You are right - I should have said the murder of innocent civilians...aka terrorism.

Well, bernee 51, I guess you have some growing to do.

That I would not deny...what about you?

Thanks for your response.

Your welcome