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

[nett]

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.

I don't subscribe to the non-aggression principle. Sometimes, there is no option for nations to "not start wars", you only postpone them, which makes for far more violence and destruction in the end. Jesus said there would be wars and rumors or wars.

Find me the non-aggression principle in the Bible, and we can go from there, otherwise stop assuming that I endorse your goofy liberal ideas.

If you and Ken were alive in the times of Jesus', would you would disregard him entirely because he's not willing to denounce the Roman occupation or something like that. I know Ken endorses violence, but for a self-proclaimed non-resistant Christian, have you ever actually thought about what Jesus did when faced with a violent, unjust occupation by an evil aggressor

The moral situation with Russia and The Ukraine is no where near as clear cut as the Roman occupation.

Russia is unhappy and threatened by NATO expansion. They felt threatened having The Ukraine right at their border essentially becoming a US client state under shadow NATO influence, especially with The Ukraine military either unable or unwilling to do anything about growing neo-nazism.

Whether you like it or not, The US, with its death grip on NATO regularly does egregiously evil things in countries and to people that have no way to drum up social media support, or even get anyone to notice.

I'm disgusted by the propaganda coming out of the west, like the Zelenskys Portrait of Bravery in Vogue.

I care much more about these defenseless people than whether The Ukraine gets to continue pretending to be sovereign. If they're sovereign, they should win the war, if they can't win the war, they're not sovereign.

It's completely wrong for western nations to keep pumping military aid into The Ukraine essentially keeping a lost war going. The Ukraine needs to accept reality, which means, surrender, or find a way to get along with Russia.

Getting along with Russia means distance with the west. that really doesn't seem that unreasonable to me. I consider the empire of the liberal west to be one of the most evil, debauched empires to ever exist. Why does Russia need to be ok with that?

... 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.

By liberal, I don't mean democrat vs republican. I find post-liberal thought to be most based in reality right now. I've explained this in great detail in other posts that you've responded to. I would assume you're familiar with the term "classical liberalism", since you opinions are basically textbook examples of the school of thought.

[Bootstrap]

If you and Ken were alive in the times of Jesus', would you would disregard him entirely because he's not willing to denounce the Roman occupation or something like that. I know Ken endorses violence, but for a self-proclaimed non-resistant Christian, have you ever actually thought about what Jesus did when faced with a violent, unjust occupation by an evil aggressor

I have thought about that quite a bit, actually. And I don't think that Christianity revolves around political players.

But in many of these conversations, people seem to be promoting the rightness of Caesar, not abstaining from these debates. In the most recent threads, Putin is sometimes being promoted as someone who is somehow saving us from the corruption of the West, standing up for Christianity, whatever.

Or as someone who has no responsibility for the decisions he makes because he is merely a passive victim of the West.

I don't see a lot of that kind of talk coming from Jesus or his followers in the New Testament.

The moral situation with Russia and The Ukraine is no where near as clear cut as the Roman occupation.

On that, we disagree.

Russia is unhappy and threatened by NATO expansion. They felt threatened having The Ukraine right at their border essentially becoming a US client state under shadow NATO influence, especially with The Ukraine military either unable or unwilling to do anything about growing neo-nazism.

We're getting pretty far from the subject of the thread, but I think this is really more about Europe than the United States. Remember that the Warsaw Pact once surrounded Europe. I once lived in Berlin, surrounded by Soviet military forces, with plenty of spies from all sides. Berlin feels awfully close to Ukraine. That's why Europe cares so much about this.

In Putin's view, the whole world looks like a big chessboard where Russia and the United States and China are the only real players. I don't see it that way. I think European countries, including Ukraine, have their own leaders and agendas and concerns and perspectives. I think Ukraine is mostly about Ukraine. And I don't think we should adopt or promote Putin's view on this.

But in the Kingdom of God, I don't have much control over these things. I can pray for the situation, pray for the victims, and seek ways to help refugees and others. I'm curious how you see the Kingdom of God's role in this.

P.S. I'll address the Nazi theme elsewhere ... maybe it needs its own thread.

[Ken]

If you and Ken were alive in the times of Jesus', would you would disregard him entirely because he's not willing to denounce the Roman occupation or something like that. I know Ken endorses violence, but for a self-proclaimed non-resistant Christian, have you ever actually thought about what Jesus did when faced with a violent, unjust occupation by an evil aggressor

I don't endorse violence. I denounce violence and war as a means of achieving international objectives. It would be my wish that the use of violence and decision to engage in a war of aggression utterly fails for Russia so that other countries aren't tempted to follow Russia's lead and chose war and violence as a means to settle differences.

It is my belief that the surest way to ensure more wars in the future is to "reward" Russia for this one. And the surest way to ensure less wars in the future is if Russia becomes an object lesson on the futility of aggressive war as a means of achieving international objectives.

My views on war are reflected by the international court during the Nuremburg trials which concluded:

"War is essentially an evil thing. Its consequences are not confined to the belligerent states alone, but affect the whole world. To initiate a war of aggression, therefore, is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole."

I assume your willingness to excuse Russia's actions means you are the one who actually approves of aggressive war as a means of resolving international conflicts. I do not, whether it is Russia or the United States. In fact I would not object to seeing George W Bush, Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, and the other architects of the Iraq War tried for war crimes and jailed in the Hague. If that had happened then future American leaders might be more hesitant about engaging in war. And if Russia fails in this one then that might restrain future Russian leaders from attempting the same thing on one of its other borders.

[nett]

But in many of these conversations, people seem to be promoting the rightness of Caesar, not abstaining from these debates. In the most recent threads, Putin is sometimes being promoted as someone who is somehow saving us from the corruption of the West, standing up for Christianity, whatever.

Or as someone who has no responsibility for the decisions he makes because he is merely a passive victim of the West.

Your characterizations of what people on this thread are saying are your opinion, and do not reflect reality in my opinion.

I don't see a lot of that kind of talk coming from Jesus or his followers in the New Testament.

What example did Jesus gives us regarding condemning the Roman occupation as unjust, or Roman rulers as specifically unjust, as you have done ad nauseam in the case of the present conflict?

Russia is unhappy and threatened by NATO expansion. They felt threatened having The Ukraine right at their border essentially becoming a US client state under shadow NATO influence, especially with The Ukraine military either unable or unwilling to do anything about growing neo-nazism.

We're getting pretty far from the subject of the thread, but I think this is really more about Europe than the United States. Remember that the Warsaw Pact once surrounded Europe. I once lived in Berlin, surrounded by Soviet military forces, with plenty of spies from all sides. Berlin feels awfully close to Ukraine. That's why Europe cares so much about this.

In Putin's view, the whole world looks like a big chessboard where Russia and the United States and China are the only real players. I don't see it that way. I think European countries, including Ukraine, have their own leaders and agendas and concerns and perspectives. I think Ukraine is mostly about Ukraine. And I don't think we should adopt or promote Putin's view on this.

But in the Kingdom of God, I don't have much control over these things. I can pray for the situation, pray for the victims, and seek ways to help refugees and others. I'm curious how you see the Kingdom of God's role in this.

but that's what you've done here. You've repeatedly defended anything The Ukraine does, proclaimed their virtue, while universally condemning anything Russia does, and you've tried to get others to confess their belief in your reality (specifically asking Josh to condemn war as bad)

I fail to see any of that as justified for a Christian.

P.S. I'll address the Nazi theme elsewhere ... maybe it needs its own thread.

Let me guess, they weren't "real" nazis, and were actually nice people who anyone would want to have over for dinner with the fam.

[nett]

If you and Ken were alive in the times of Jesus', would you would disregard him entirely because he's not willing to denounce the Roman occupation or something like that. I know Ken endorses violence, but for a self-proclaimed non-resistant Christian, have you ever actually thought about what Jesus did when faced with a violent, unjust occupation by an evil aggressor

I don't endorse violence. I denounce violence and war as a means of achieving international objectives. It would be my wish that the use of violence and decision to engage in a war of aggression utterly fails for Russia so that other countries aren't tempted to follow Russia's lead and chose war and violence as a means to settle differences.

It is my belief that the surest way to ensure more wars in the future is to "reward" Russia for this one. And the surest way to ensure less wars in the future is if Russia becomes an object lesson on the futility of aggressive war as a means of achieving international objectives.

My views on war are reflected by the international court during the Nuremburg trials which concluded:

"War is essentially an evil thing. Its consequences are not confined to the belligerent states alone, but affect the whole world. To initiate a war of aggression, therefore, is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole."

I assume your willingness to excuse Russia's actions means you are the one who actually approves of aggressive war as a means of resolving international conflicts. I do not, whether it is Russia or the United States. In fact I would not object to seeing George W Bush, Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, and the other architects of the Iraq War tried for war crimes and jailed in the Hague. If that had happened then future American leaders might be more hesitant about engaging in war. And if Russia fails in this one then that might restrain future Russian leaders from attempting the same thing on one of its other borders.

If you think international law, or liberal condemnations of war is going to end the act of war, I think you're completely delusional.

War is inevitable. Saying war is bad, is about as meaningful as saying dying is bad, or cancer is bad.

[Ken]

If you and Ken were alive in the times of Jesus', would you would disregard him entirely because he's not willing to denounce the Roman occupation or something like that. I know Ken endorses violence, but for a self-proclaimed non-resistant Christian, have you ever actually thought about what Jesus did when faced with a violent, unjust occupation by an evil aggressor

I don't endorse violence. I denounce violence and war as a means of achieving international objectives. It would be my wish that the use of violence and decision to engage in a war of aggression utterly fails for Russia so that other countries aren't tempted to follow Russia's lead and chose war and violence as a means to settle differences.

It is my belief that the surest way to ensure more wars in the future is to "reward" Russia for this one. And the surest way to ensure less wars in the future is if Russia becomes an object lesson on the futility of aggressive war as a means of achieving international objectives.

My views on war are reflected by the international court during the Nuremburg trials which concluded:

"War is essentially an evil thing. Its consequences are not confined to the belligerent states alone, but affect the whole world. To initiate a war of aggression, therefore, is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole."

I assume your willingness to excuse Russia's actions means you are the one who actually approves of aggressive war as a means of resolving international conflicts. I do not, whether it is Russia or the United States. In fact I would not object to seeing George W Bush, Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, and the other architects of the Iraq War tried for war crimes and jailed in the Hague. If that had happened then future American leaders might be more hesitant about engaging in war. And if Russia fails in this one then that might restrain future Russian leaders from attempting the same thing on one of its other borders.

If you think international law, or liberal condemnations of war is going to end the act of war, I think you're completely delusional.

War is inevitable. Saying war is bad, is about as meaningful as saying dying is bad, or cancer is bad.

This thread isn't about ending the war. It is about whether Christians can support it. Two completely separate subjects.

[nett]

This thread isn't about ending the war. It is about whether Christians can support it. Two completely separate subjects.

Supporting it and condemning it are two different things. Find me a bible verse telling Christians to universally condemn all war, and the rulers / states who wage them.

[Bootstrap]

This thread isn't about ending the war. It is about whether Christians can support it. Two completely separate subjects.

Supporting it and condemning it are two different things. Find me a bible verse telling Christians to universally condemn all war, and the rulers / states who wage them.

Do you believe that war is ever wrong, Nett? Do you believe that killing large numbers of civilians who are no danger to you is immoral? Why or why not?

I don't think I'm saying the things you put in my mouth and mock. I think I am saying that Putin is doing awful things in Ukraine. Do you disagree? If so, on what grounds? Can Christians excuse an "unjust war" in a conflict?

[Bootstrap]

P.S. I'll address the Nazi theme elsewhere ... maybe it needs its own thread.

Let me guess, they weren't "real" nazis, and were actually nice people who anyone would want to have over for dinner with the fam.

Let me guess, you love Nazis and think all Christians should be Nazis.

That's not what you think? I didn't think so. Well, guess what, your guess was wrong too, so could you please stop making things up and putting them into my mouth? Here's the thread if you want to see what I actually said:

http://forum.mennonet.com/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=5087

For the most part, though, I can't tell if you are even reading what I write. I'll respond to specific things I said if you want to ask about them, but I don't think your stereotypes or guesses are worth responding to.

[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.

I don't subscribe to the non-aggression principle. Sometimes, there is no option for nations to "not start wars", you only postpone them, which makes for far more violence and destruction in the end. Jesus said there would be wars and rumors or wars.

But sometimes there IS an option for nations to not start wars. Do you believe that nations have an obligation to avoid starting wars if they are not actually under threat?

So far, you haven't given a black and white answer to that.