Mennonites and War

[ken_sylvania]

Killing is killing and is wrong. Warfare does not result in respectful, honorable, fair fighting. Never has, never will.
there is no just morality in war. Just evil.

You and I have no ability to change it. What we can do is show compassion to either side if we happen to actually talk to one and try to teach them the Jesus way.
Arguing over morality of sides is utterly pointless and not our job.
I would treat the Russian and the Ukrainian the same. Teach them that to love their enemies means they lay down their life for them. Not to be a carpet, but a chance to redeem the lost.

Exactly.

[Bootstrap]

Also, why is the Ukrainian war worth your attention to argue on more than the war in Sudan?

It’s not. There were other examples in the OP too. We could add Sudan, Tigray, Amhara, Myanmar, Somalia. There’s no shortage of conflicts worth our concern.

Which was worse, The German soldier? Or the Russian?

Why limit it to just those two?

• Germany or Poland? Clear aggressor: Germany.
• Germany and the UK? Germany.
• Germany and France? Germany.
• Yugoslavia, Greece, the Netherlands, Belgium, Norway, Denmark, Czechoslovakia? In all of these cases, Germany was the aggressor and the other country the victim.

Do you disagree?

I am sure you have the moral fortitude to say no, but does the average Ukrainian? The average Russian?

What happens to a Russian who says no? What happens to the Ukrainian who says no?

Sure, but I see a moral difference between:

1. Someone who kills, rapes, and tortures innocent civilians, and
2. Someone who risks his life to try to prevent that.

I couldn't do either, but I also wouldn’t call them morally equivalent.

You and I have no ability to change it. What we can do is show compassion to either side if we happen to actually talk to one and try to teach them the Jesus way.
Arguing over morality of sides is utterly pointless and not our job.
I would treat the Russian and the Ukrainian the same. Teach them that to love their enemies means they lay down their life for them. Not to be a carpet, but a chance to redeem the lost.

I think that's a reasonable approach.

But I'm less comfortable with this:

Killing is killing and is wrong. Warfare does not result in respectful, honorable, fair fighting. Never has, never will.
there is no just morality in war. Just evil.

If that implies moral equivalence, I disagree. I see a difference between a violent criminal and a policeman — even though both use deadly force. I don’t think Scripture treats them as the same.

Romans 13 says that Caesar bears the sword as God's servant. It never says violent criminals do that. These distinctions matter.

[Bootstrap]

I think it's probably wiser to simply refuse to take a position on which side of a war is "right".

Sure — but that’s very different from claiming there’s no difference between the two sides.

The first simply says, “That’s for Another Kingdom to judge.”
The second claims there’s no moral distinction between an aggressor and a victim — and I don’t think Scripture or common sense supports that.

Two things here that I adamantly disagree with

I didn’t write either of those paragraphs, and they don’t accurately reflect what I’m saying. If we’re going to debate my position, let’s work from the paragraphs I actually wrote — then I can tell you whether I still stand by them.

Also, if no one here is arguing for moral equivalence, then it sounds like we actually agree on that point — and it would be helpful to say so plainly. I think these discussions work best when each of us states our own beliefs, rather than trying to frame what the other person believes.

[Soloist]

Which was worse, The German soldier? Or the Russian?

Why limit it to just those two?

• Germany or Poland? Clear aggressor: Germany.
• Germany and the UK? Germany.
• Germany and France? Germany.
• Yugoslavia, Greece, the Netherlands, Belgium, Norway, Denmark, Czechoslovakia? In all of these cases, Germany was the aggressor and the other country the victim.

Do you disagree?

There was a specific reason I picked Russia and I think you know exactly what I was doing just like I know exactly what you’re doing.

Sure, but I see a moral difference between:

1. Someone who kills, rapes, and tortures innocent civilians, and
2. Someone who risks his life to try to prevent that.

I couldn't do either, but I also wouldn’t call them morally equivalent.

You aren’t actually reading what I’m saying. All military have those things happen. We still regularly have military arrested in Japan for that very thing.
Military, actively engaging warfare, do not tend to act very friendly towards the civilians of the opposing side, and it has never been the case where they do unless they want something. prime example would be Vietnam women in contrast with the majority of the rest of the Vietnam civilians.

But I'm less comfortable with this:

Killing is killing and is wrong. Warfare does not result in respectful, honorable, fair fighting. Never has, never will.
there is no just morality in war. Just evil.

If that implies moral equivalence, I disagree. I see a difference between a violent criminal and a policeman — even though both use deadly force. I don’t think Scripture treats them as the same.

Romans 13 says that Caesar bears the sword as God's servant. It never says violent criminals do that. These distinctions matter.

Caesar was a violent criminal under your description. Nero had the sword.
You’re trying to somehow say that Russia is different yet they are recognized government just like Ukraine. Israel was conquered by Babylon and then later God judged Babylon for how they did it. (if I have the correct nation anyway… it’s been a while)
Either way that wasn’t saying how they wielded the sword to go conquer other nations or defend against other nations that was in regard to their own government and how they disciplined their own citizens.

[Bootstrap]

Which was worse, The German soldier? Or the Russian?

Why limit it to just those two?

• Germany or Poland? Clear aggressor: Germany.
• Germany and the UK? Germany.
• Germany and France? Germany.
• Yugoslavia, Greece, the Netherlands, Belgium, Norway, Denmark, Czechoslovakia? In all of these cases, Germany was the aggressor and the other country the victim.

Do you disagree?

There was a specific reason I picked Russia and I think you know exactly what I was doing just like I know exactly what you’re doing.

I chose to broaden the comparison because looking only at Germany vs. Russia risks overlooking the bigger picture. In nearly every other case—Germany vs. Poland, France, Denmark, Norway, the Netherlands, Yugoslavia, and so on—Germany was clearly the aggressor.

That seems like an important moral distinction. Do you agree with that?

[Soloist]

I chose to broaden the comparison because looking only at Germany vs. Russia risks overlooking the bigger picture. In nearly every other case—Germany vs. Poland, France, Denmark, Norway, the Netherlands, Yugoslavia, and so on—Germany was clearly the aggressor.

That seems like an important moral distinction. Do you agree with that?

How about you answer my question then I can answer yours? Or we can continue to reframe the “opponents” questions and refuse to actually engage.

[Bootstrap]

Sure, but I see a moral difference between:

1. Someone who kills, rapes, and tortures innocent civilians, and
2. Someone who risks his life to try to prevent that.

I couldn't do either, but I also wouldn’t call them morally equivalent.

You aren’t actually reading what I’m saying. All military have those things happen. We still regularly have military arrested in Japan for that very thing.
Military, actively engaging warfare, do not tend to act very friendly towards the civilians of the opposing side, and it has never been the case where they do unless they want something. prime example would be Vietnam women in contrast with the majority of the rest of the Vietnam civilians.

I agree that no military is perfect, including our own, and that some individual soldiers commit terrible acts in any war. But there’s an important distinction between a country where such acts are condemned and punished and one where they are encouraged or used deliberately as a tool of war.

I don’t think all countries are morally equivalent in this regard.

[Soloist]

I agree that no military is perfect, including our own, and that some individual soldiers commit terrible acts in any war. But there’s an important distinction between a country where such acts are condemned and punished and one where they are encouraged or used deliberately as a tool of war.

I don’t think all countries are morally equivalent in this regard.

Please understand I’m not defending Russia or Ukraine when I say this… but unless you can actually show documentation that the military is encouraging these actions… then it’s just propaganda.
Certainly militaries engage in these actions, but I very much doubt you can show official documentation from any military supporting these actions.

[Bootstrap]

I chose to broaden the comparison because looking only at Germany vs. Russia risks overlooking the bigger picture. In nearly every other case—Germany vs. Poland, France, Denmark, Norway, the Netherlands, Yugoslavia, and so on—Germany was clearly the aggressor.

That seems like an important moral distinction. Do you agree with that?

How about you answer my question then I can answer yours? Or we can continue to reframe the “opponents” questions and refuse to actually engage.

Were you making a specific point about Germany and Russia? If so, it would help to state it directly so we can address it without talking past each other.

I answered your question as I understood it, and brought in the broader context because I think it’s essential to a meaningful answer. If you had a different angle in mind, I’m open to hearing it.

There are quite a few unanswered questions in this thread. I don’t think there’s a set order or any way to make people answer them, but addressing each other’s points directly might move the discussion forward.

[Soloist]

Were you making a specific point about Germany and Russia? If so, it would help to state it directly so we can address it without talking past each other.

I answered your question as I understood it, and brought in the broader context because I think it’s essential to a meaningful answer. If you had a different angle in mind, I’m open to hearing it.

There are quite a few unanswered questions in this thread. I don’t think there’s a set order or any way to make people answer them, but addressing each other’s points directly might move the discussion forward.

I’m guessing that there is no point. You keep reframing the questions or sidestepping them.
You obviously didn’t answer my question and you understood it because you specifically stated you wanted to broaden it rather than answer what I asked.

I chose to broaden the comparison because looking only at Germany vs. Russia risks overlooking the bigger picture.