Can Christians support a "just war" in a conflict?

[nett]

I don't agree with this stance. If the Ukraine has a right to defend itself violently, then Russia has just as much of a "right" or even a responsibility to invade The Ukraine if if feels threatened by NATO, Ukrainian action in the Donbas, or Zelensky dancing around in high heels.

Just because most people have swallowed the liberal nonsense that comprises the non-aggression principle, doesn't mean it's right, or that the Bible teaches it.

Nonsense. You cannot defend Russia's actions under any conceivable application of just war theory. Not the Russian decision to engage in war to being with. And not the Russian conduct in the war since it has begun.

He isn't appealing to just war theory. He is saying that Russia can invade if it "feels" threatened. I'm guessing he doesn't actually believe that, he was probably writing quickly and without much thought.

No, I wasn't writing quickly or without much thought. I don't believe there is a higher law that governs international morality. All attempts to do so have been secular attempts by men, and created worse ends than their beginnings, although I'm sure Ken will disagree.

If you're going to try to determine morality of war, then yo have to subscribe to just war theory, which I wholly reject.

I don't understand why you think a nation can't invade if it feels threatens? I have no frame of reference for that thinking, other than contemporary liberal thought, and I'm just not a liberal.

[nett]

Just because most people have swallowed the liberal nonsense that comprises the non-aggression principle, doesn't mean it's right, or that the Bible teaches it.

Your Bible says that a country can invade another country whenever it says it feels threatened? Can you please tell me where it says that?

Do you think the world is freer or safer when countries just go ahead and do that? Do you think this is something that Christians should support in order to be peacemakers? Please support your position from the Bible, preferably centering what Jesus said and taught.

I didn't say anything about the Bible authorizing invasions, although, in the OT, Israel brutally invaded plenty of nations simply because they were a spiritual or moral threat.

I can't find any way to condemn or justify Russia or Ukraine as nations based on the NT. The Ukraine had plenty of options for peaceful outcomes prior to Russia invading, they just didn't like the options, because they have a fantasy of being an "independent, sovereign nation". In the kingdom of the world, sovereignty = military might, and that doesn't make The Ukraine sovereign.

I don't see any "right" to sovereignty spelled out in the Bible, if you can direct me to some verses, I'd gladly review.

[temporal1]

No, I wasn't writing quickly or without much thought.

I don't believe there is a higher law that governs international morality. All attempts to do so have been secular attempts by men, and created worse ends than their beginnings, although I'm sure Ken will disagree.

If you're going to try to determine morality of war, then yo have to subscribe to just war theory, which I wholly reject.

I don't understand why you think a nation can't invade if it feels threatens? I have no frame of reference for that thinking, other than contemporary liberal thought, and I'm just not a liberal.

What about Haiti? As we speak.
Page 43 / http://forum.mennonet.com/viewtopic.php ... &start=420

There are armed secular Peacekeepers; separately, there are unarmed Jesus’ peacemakers.
The world has both. The former is subjective, dependent on who’s making the claim.

[nett]

No, I wasn't writing quickly or without much thought.

I don't believe there is a higher law that governs international morality. All attempts to do so have been secular attempts by men, and created worse ends than their beginnings, although I'm sure Ken will disagree.

If you're going to try to determine morality of war, then yo have to subscribe to just war theory, which I wholly reject.

I don't understand why you think a nation can't invade if it feels threatens? I have no frame of reference for that thinking, other than contemporary liberal thought, and I'm just not a liberal.

What about Haiti? As we speak.
Page 43 / http://forum.mennonet.com/viewtopic.php ... &start=420

Referring to US intervention?

[temporal1]

No, I wasn't writing quickly or without much thought.

I don't believe there is a higher law that governs international morality. All attempts to do so have been secular attempts by men, and created worse ends than their beginnings, although I'm sure Ken will disagree.

If you're going to try to determine morality of war, then yo have to subscribe to just war theory, which I wholly reject.

I don't understand why you think a nation can't invade if it feels threatens? I have no frame of reference for that thinking, other than contemporary liberal thought, and I'm just not a liberal.

What about Haiti? As we speak.
Page 43 / http://forum.mennonet.com/viewtopic.php ... &start=420

Referring to US intervention?

yes. U.S. armed intervention.

[nett]

What about Haiti? As we speak.
Page 43 / http://forum.mennonet.com/viewtopic.php ... &start=420

Referring to US intervention?

yes. U.S. armed intervention.

Seems like nothing has happened yet, but the US installed leader is a total failure. It's a really bad situation, but an opportunity for real Christian mission work for those willing to risk their lives.

[temporal1]

Referring to US intervention?

yes. U.S. armed intervention.

Seems like nothing has happened yet, but the US installed leader is a total failure. It's a really bad situation, but an opportunity for real Christian mission work for those willing to risk their lives.

i’m not sure Christian missions are allowed right now? it’s impossible to know from the gov sites i found.

i’m not against the U.S. military action, the situation is chaotic, no matter who is describing (including in the H. Kidnapping thread).
The U.S. has sent the Coast Guard, evidently, Canada might join in, BUT, there is no huge military machine (so far) to immediately oppose the Coast Guard with missiles.

i’m comparing it to Russia-Ukraine.
Russia claims Feb 24 was about Peacekeeping, they were immediately met with missiles, and accused of violent invasion.

In the West, we are at ease thinking of the (U.S.) as the sole arbitars of peace. That’s what we want to be true.
What is true?

Haiti has been a mess for years+years, UN Peacekeepers .. eventually left. Many dire problems with UN efforts.
A cholera outbreak was one, fatherless children left behind was another.

[Ken]

Nonsense. You cannot defend Russia's actions under any conceivable application of just war theory. Not the Russian decision to engage in war to being with. And not the Russian conduct in the war since it has begun.

He isn't appealing to just war theory. He is saying that Russia can invade if it "feels" threatened. I'm guessing he doesn't actually believe that, he was probably writing quickly and without much thought.

No, I wasn't writing quickly or without much thought. I don't believe there is a higher law that governs international morality. All attempts to do so have been secular attempts by men, and created worse ends than their beginnings, although I'm sure Ken will disagree.

If you're going to try to determine morality of war, then yo have to subscribe to just war theory, which I wholly reject.

I don't understand why you think a nation can't invade if it feels threatens? I have no frame of reference for that thinking, other than contemporary liberal thought, and I'm just not a liberal.

Law only has the power and authority that people assign to it. The US Constitution is just a useless piece of paper (as is the Bible) unless people agree to it and agree to follow its dictates.

International law does exist there are numerous conventions governing warfare, refugees, international relations, and so forth. They exist, you can look them up. And most nations including Russia, Ukraine, and the US are signatories to them. In a very similar manner to how the various states of the US ratified the US Constitution and subsequent amendments.

What we don't have is an international United Nations military force to enforce such international law like we have police forces in the US to enforce US law. That is probably a good thing I suppose. But it also means when nations flagrantly violate international law as Russia is currently doing there is not a lot that can be done other than economic sanctions and that sort of thing. Or direct intervention as was the case with the first Gulf War when an international coalition under the authority of the United Nations ejected Iraq from Kuwait.

None of it authorizes one nation to invade another simply because they pretend to feel threatened. And yes, any claims by Russia that they "felt threatened" by Ukraine were nothing more than a ridiculous pretense.

If I am your neighbor and I "feel threatened" by the fact that you have firearms on your property can I fire bomb your house and burn you and your family alive because I "feel threatened"? Is that the world you want to live in?

[Bootstrap]

I don't understand why you think a nation can't invade if it feels threatened? I have no frame of reference for that thinking, other than contemporary liberal thought, and I'm just not a liberal.

Feels threatened? What does that even mean? Hitler said he felt threatened, does that mean he had the right to do whatever he wanted? Leaders of military powers regularly lie when they want to invade another country.

If war is a bad thing, starting a war is a bad thing. Putin's Russia was not under military threat.

... and I'm just not a liberal.

I remember when conservatives opposed Russian imperialism. It wasn't that long ago. In the last six or seven years, Putin has become a darling of some parts of American conservative politics. Go figure.

[Bootstrap]

Your Bible says that a country can invade another country whenever it says it feels threatened? Can you please tell me where it says that?

Do you think the world is freer or safer when countries just go ahead and do that? Do you think this is something that Christians should support in order to be peacemakers? Please support your position from the Bible, preferably centering what Jesus said and taught.

I didn't say anything about the Bible authorizing invasions, although, in the OT, Israel brutally invaded plenty of nations simply because they were a spiritual or moral threat.

I can't find any way to condemn or justify Russia or Ukraine as nations based on the NT. The Ukraine had plenty of options for peaceful outcomes prior to Russia invading, they just didn't like the options, because they have a fantasy of being an "independent, sovereign nation". In the kingdom of the world, sovereignty = military might, and that doesn't make The Ukraine sovereign.

I don't see any "right" to sovereignty spelled out in the Bible, if you can direct me to some verses, I'd gladly review.

Russia had plenty of options for peaceful outcomes prior to invading. It's called "don't invade".

Ukraine decided twice that it doesn't want to be governed by Russia. The second time, Russia took Crimea and sent troops into the Donbas, starting the war that has now escalated. You seem to think it's wrong for Ukraine to want to be a country, but just fine for Russia to want to be an empire that threatens its neighbors and takes them over. Can you explain this thinking? Do you think Ukraine "felt threatened" when Russia took parts of Ukraine, sent troops in, and surrounded it between 2014 and 2022?

In the kingdom of the world, sovereignty = military might, and that doesn't make The Ukraine sovereign.

So you reject "soverignty = military might", but you do not reject military imperialism, restoring the glory of the Russian empire by taking over its neighbors? Have you read Putin's speech in February? I think he laid it all out. And I think this is a fair summary:

From all this, Putin’s vision of history is clear—if viciously wrong. A great Russia once existed, of which Ukraine was but a part. The bad communists, like Lenin and Khrushchev and their successor Mikhail Gorbachev, divided up that great Russia in an artificial way, creating divisions where none existed before. Implicit in this is that Ukrainians who say differently are deluded or manipulated by others. Now, that natural vision has to be restored by a strong leader, walking in the footsteps of Stalin.

The things that are left out of Putin’s version are too numerous to recount, from tsarist oppression to the Holodomor, when Ukrainians were starved by Soviet policy, to the very existence of the Baltic states. As so often with nationalists, Russia is simultaneously powerful and a victim in this, mighty but constantly sinned against and targeted by others.

But that’s the point. This is a simple version of history, put forward by a strongman determined to transform it into a simple version of the future: one in which all so-called Russians, including Ukrainians, bow before the might of the empire—and the emperor.