Russia Invades Ukraine 2022

[nett]

But again, the American invasion of Iraq doesn't justify Russia's invasion of Ukraine.

No one has posited anything more compelling than Augustine for what constitutes a "justified" invasion. Without the criteria, and accepting the moral authority that defines "justified", the concept has really lost all meaning.

I continue to contend that it is very difficult to condemn unprovoked invasion on a Biblical basis. No one seems to want to discuss this though. Maybe because it presents a problem for establishing moral superiority.

[Szdfan]

But again, the American invasion of Iraq doesn't justify Russia's invasion of Ukraine.

No one has posited anything more compelling than Augustine for what constitutes a "justified" invasion. Without the criteria, and accepting the moral authority that defines "justified", the concept has really lost all meaning.

I continue to contend that it is very difficult to condemn unprovoked invasion on a Biblical basis. No one seems to want to discuss this though. Maybe because it presents a problem for establishing moral superiority.

I don't care about "moral superiority." I think both the US invasion of Iraq and the Russian invasion of Ukraine are bad. I think that American hypocrisy is being used to deflect criticism of Russia.

I think you have a deeply cynical view of the world that I don't share.

[Dan Z]

I don't necessarily disagree, but does being the aggressor imply ethical inferiority? What standard of ethics condemns a nation for being proactive, or expansionist?

Declaring war is in itself an ethically dubious act, in that it almost guarantees tremendous human loss and suffering. So, perhaps the more important question is, what standard of ethics justifies the death and destruction brought about by invading a neighboring sovereign country?

Was Moab a sovereign nation Dan?

Nett - you are bright and tenacious - but I concede that we function out of very different worldviews (& probably theologies)...which inevitably leads us to very different ways of seeing the world around us (including where we look for information). If I had a sense that the cement hadn't hardened yet, I'd find this conversation worth having as a mutually enlightening exercise (something I have found from time to time in MennoNet and MennoDiscuss)...but at this point, it feels more like spinning wheels. In many important ways, we just don't speak the same language.

So...I'm going to step back for now and simply bless you as a beloved child of God who sees the world with different eyes than I do.

[ken_sylvania]

But again, the American invasion of Iraq doesn't justify Russia's invasion of Ukraine.

I continue to contend that it is very difficult to condemn unprovoked invasion on a Biblical basis. No one seems to want to discuss this though. Maybe because it presents a problem for establishing moral superiority.

I think it's easy. Jesus said "Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them that despitefully use you. I cannot see how any rational person could believe that an unprovoked invasion constitutes obedience to this teaching.

[temporal1]

oj:
.. Creative redefinitions to justify the unjustifiable.

i believe i had a lot of company in not understanding why the word, “war” was staunchly avoided by U.S. leaders, while public video reports of U.S. gunfire and bombs were openly displayed, and the draft was underway.

Today, reports are, Russia is using the word, “conflict,” in Ukraine. What ordinary people see is war, no matter origin or motivation.

I continue to contend that it is very difficult to condemn unprovoked invasion on a Biblical basis. No one seems to want to discuss this though. Maybe because it presents a problem for establishing moral superiority.

I think it's easy. Jesus said "Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them that despitefully use you. I cannot see how any rational person could believe that an unprovoked invasion constitutes obedience to this teaching.

for indviduals, i believe ken_s is correct, it’s clear.

if i’m understanding, i believe nett is referring to earthly nations’ responsibilities and actions, which Jesus could have addressed, but didn’t. the individual has the moral choice to engage or walk away, which may conflict with how nations view it. and often does.

Jesus could have began with or focused primarily on eartly leaders. He did not. that would have resulted in a very different outcome of His time on earth. i see Christians routinely expecting government to do what Jesus posed directly to individuals.

i struggle with trying to grasp what’s correct and what is confused, conflated, mistaken.

nett, you have overall good perspective and valuable experience+insights.
i’m looking forward to reading more. i hope you don’t feel rejected/shut down. or unanswered.

not receiving immediate feedback on this forum can mean others are mulling over response, not necessarily that they are ignoring questions. the nature of the internet is speed. humans are not always speedy, and, that is not a bad thing. some matters deserve time. the fastest+noisiest are not always best.

that’s an internet problem. i hope sophistication will come as folks learn how to best use the internet.
maybe no longer driving internet Model Ts, we still have a long way to go.

- - - - - - -

none of us can undo Russia’s action in Ukraine. Russia is reported to have felt an existential threat.
the choices remain how to respond.

we see how political leaders are responding. definitely not turning the cheek. not interested in diplomacy.
a lot of interest in utter across-the-board annihilation. desire for domination. desire for popular support to these ends.

diplomacy requires making an effort to see both sides of any disagreement. right or wrong, if Russia believed there was an existential threat, that needs to be part of beginning negotiations. there has to be a starting place.

i continue to pray for resolution. and for wisdom for those tasked with the work of it.

[ken_sylvania]

I continue to contend that it is very difficult to condemn unprovoked invasion on a Biblical basis. No one seems to want to discuss this though. Maybe because it presents a problem for establishing moral superiority.

I think it's easy. Jesus said "Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them that despitefully use you. I cannot see how any rational person could believe that an unprovoked invasion constitutes obedience to this teaching.

for indviduals, i believe ken_s is correct, it’s clear.

if i’m understanding, i believe nett is referring to earthly nations’ responsibilities and actions, which Jesus could have addressed, but didn’t. the individual has the moral choice to engage or walk away, which may conflict with how nations view it. and often does.

Jesus could have began with or focused primarily on eartly leaders. He did not. that would have resulted in a very different outcome of His time on earth. i see Christians routinely expecting government to do what Jesus posed directly to individuals.

i struggle with trying to grasp what’s correct and what is confused, conflated, mistaken.
....

In what way did Jesus not address earthly nations' responsibilities and actions? There is no such thing as an earthly nation that is not comprised of individual people - individual people for whom Jesus died and who he has called to follow in his steps. Individual people who he has commanded to love their enemies.

How can an earthly nation engage in war without encouraging, even demanding, that individual people directly disobey Jesus?

If you are attempting to reconcile some kind of theory that supports nations engaging in war, with Jesus instructions to be peaceable and gentle, I can understand why you would struggle to reach and understanding. It would give me a headache too!

[Neto]

But again, the American invasion of Iraq doesn't justify Russia's invasion of Ukraine.

I continue to contend that it is very difficult to condemn unprovoked invasion on a Biblical basis. No one seems to want to discuss this though. Maybe because it presents a problem for establishing moral superiority.

I think it's easy. Jesus said "Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them that despitefully use you. I cannot see how any rational person could believe that an unprovoked invasion constitutes obedience to this teaching.

Ken S., as I understand him, Nett is looking at this with a strict separation between what is addressed to believers (as for example your quote), and what might have been addressed to secular entities, specifically nations. So in a way these injunctions given to us as believers provide no clarity for what a nation might be told.

I think, however, that the injunctions given to believers express the will of God for mankind, and as such, they may be considered as an expression of the kind of morality that God wants (and expects) even non-believers and secular nations to abide by. We can see all throughout the OT story that God judges the wicked actions of non-believing ethnic groups or nations, even when he uses those evil actions to correct his own people.

A former Bible translator who became an atheist is an FB friend, and he freely expresses moralistic opinions about this war. (He is no unlearned person, either - he is known around the world as a leading linguist, and unfortunately is a "prize catch" for the atheist community.) But it is especially interesting to read the comments from friends of his, probably also mainly professionals in the field of linguistics, but the interesting part is that many of them are people who grew up under communism in various former Soviet states. They tell about going to linguistic conferences during the Soviet era, where the participants, all of whom spoke Russian as mandated by the government, avoided using it when ever they could, choosing to speak any other language they all had in common, which was often English (because most linguistic work has been written in the English language).

[Szdfan]

I continue to contend that it is very difficult to condemn unprovoked invasion on a Biblical basis. No one seems to want to discuss this though. Maybe because it presents a problem for establishing moral superiority.

I think it's easy. Jesus said "Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them that despitefully use you. I cannot see how any rational person could believe that an unprovoked invasion constitutes obedience to this teaching.

Ken S., as I understand him, Nett is looking at this with a strict separation between what is addressed to believers (as for example your quote), and what might have been addressed to secular entities, specifically nations. So in a way these injunctions given to us as believers provide no clarity for what a nation might be told.

I think, however, that the injunctions given to believers express the will of God for mankind, and as such, they may be considered as an expression of the kind of morality that God wants (and expects) even non-believers and secular nations to abide by. We can see all throughout the OT story that God judges the wicked actions of non-believing ethnic groups or nations, even when he uses those evil actions to correct his own people.

One of the things I struggle with in this conversation is the assumption that since the nations are not under the same moral mandates as individual Christians, then there are no expectations about morality for them.

That makes no sense to me. Christianity is not the only source of morality in the world. There are secular sources of morality, even during war (such as the Geneva Convention which dictates how prisoners and civilians and other international law). To wave it away and say that none of that matters is deeply cynical and not really a world I want to live in.

[temporal1]

In what way did Jesus not address earthly nations' responsibilities and actions? There is no such thing as an earthly nation that is not comprised of individual people - individual people for whom Jesus died and who he has called to follow in his steps. Individual people who he has commanded to love their enemies.

How can an earthly nation engage in war without encouraging, even demanding, that individual people directly disobey Jesus?

If you are attempting to reconcile some kind of theory that supports nations engaging in war, with Jesus instructions to be peaceable and gentle, I can understand why you would struggle to reach and understanding. It would give me a headache too!

Wars/violence do give me a headache, i’ve never hoped for war, encouraged war, celebrated war. Even as a teen. Even in the Cold War. In my life, no change.

i’m aware of violence+conflict. my youthful visit to Montreal convinced me, humans will be at war, over something.
decades have shown me that’s life on earth. before, as a teen in the U.S., in Vietnam days, i believed “we” could bring an end to war. there was a question, “what would happen if government declared war - but nobody showed up??!” it seemed so simple.
Montreal showed me, that was not going to happen.

as far as Ukraine goes, i’m not aware that anyone on this forum or in anything i’ve read, supports Putin’s invasion.
the strange thing that seems to be happening is (a lot like 2016-2020) HATE is the requirement. if anyone is not willing to HATE, the allegation is, you are supporting Putin. “how dare you?!” i could not abide this regarding DJT, nor can i regarding Putin.

it’s a bad formula, it’s primitive, not of Jesus Christ.

i know i’m falling short of Jesus’ command to love enemies. i think, and i hope, not hating is a step in Jesus’ direction.
i hope He sees it that way. i hate what Putin did. i don’t hate Putin. (that falls short of what Jesus wants.) i’m working on it.

i think primary focus should be on talks for resolution. i hope this pleases Jesus. (it might not be enough.)

i know nations engage in war. it’s a fact of life. that doesn’t mean i support it. i hate it.

Putin has acted.
the only choice left is how to respond to it. so far, escalating violence and violent rhetoric have prevailed.
praying for talks is (not going as far as Jesus told His to go). that’s a headache.

Neto is doing a good job of expressing his views on it. He’s trying to refrain from hate.
i don’t sense hate in nett’s views, either. i sense he is seeking to find authentic Truth. i admire that in anyone.

i hope that helps.

[ken_sylvania]

I continue to contend that it is very difficult to condemn unprovoked invasion on a Biblical basis. No one seems to want to discuss this though. Maybe because it presents a problem for establishing moral superiority.

I think it's easy. Jesus said "Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them that despitefully use you. I cannot see how any rational person could believe that an unprovoked invasion constitutes obedience to this teaching.

Ken S., as I understand him, Nett is looking at this with a strict separation between what is addressed to believers (as for example your quote), and what might have been addressed to secular entities, specifically nations. So in a way these injunctions given to us as believers provide no clarity for what a nation might be told.

I think, however, that the injunctions given to believers express the will of God for mankind, and as such, they may be considered as an expression of the kind of morality that God wants (and expects) even non-believers and secular nations to abide by. We can see all throughout the OT story that God judges the wicked actions of non-believing ethnic groups or nations, even when he uses those evil actions to correct his own people.

Exactly.
There seems to be an idea among some that God has two sets of requirements. Something along the lines of "If you believe in Me and are willing to obey Me, I want you to love and forgive your enemies. If you don't believe in Me and are unwilling to obey me, I want you to fight to the death for your rights and freedoms." This cannot be true.