Mennonites and War

[barnhart]

Bootstrap, when my grandfather's grandfather was a young man, a large army invaded and marched into his region burning houses, barns and mills, shooting livestock and leaving them in the field, stealing horses and food like cured meat and butter. The government raised a defense force to repel them and my ancestor was recruited by force to serve in the defensive forces.

In your world view should my great, great grandfather serve?

I do not believe that Christians should serve in the military, period.

Should my great, great grandfather organization his church to formulate statements about the which side was the aggressor?

[Bootstrap]

Bootstrap, when my grandfather's grandfather was a young man, a large army invaded and marched into his region burning houses, barns and mills, shooting livestock and leaving them in the field, stealing horses and food like cured meat and butter. The government raised a defense force to repel them and my ancestor was recruited by force to serve in the defensive forces.

In your world view should my great, great grandfather serve?

I do not believe that Christians should serve in the military, period.

Should my great, great grandfather organization his church to formulate statements about the which side was the aggressor?

Was it wrong for a large army to invade and march into his region burning houses, barns and mills, shooting livestock and leaving them in the field, stealing horses and food like cured meat and butter? Did that result in innocent people starving? I think the church can clearly say that, and try to help the victims.

Should the church actively urge victims to surrender and say nothing about perpetrators? If not, should it draw distinctions?

[Soloist]

This is what I asked Chatgpt 5.

how does this this differ or agree with Augustine's just war theory? then I posted your two messages.

[Bootstrap]

This is what I asked Chatgpt 5.

how does this this differ or agree with Augustine's just war theory? then I posted your two messages.

OK, not sure why we got such different results. But that's a question for the technology thread ;=>

[R7ehr]

Should the church actively urge victims to surrender and say nothing about perpetrators? If not, should it draw distinctions?

The church should focus on their own spiritual well being, namely forgive the perpetrators, and return good for evil. Surrender, is close to "give to him that asks" and, "if compelled to walk a mile, walk two".
Not relentlessly bark about the wicked things the enemy did, which makes forgiveness more difficult and makes hate more justified.

[Soloist]

This is what I asked Chatgpt 5.

how does this this differ or agree with Augustine's just war theory? then I posted your two messages.

OK, not sure why we got such different results. But that's a question for the technology thread ;=>

has to do with how you've trained it. It also gives results knowing you are Bootstrap.

[barnhart]

I do not believe that Christians should serve in the military, period.

Should my great, great grandfather organization his church to formulate statements about the which side was the aggressor?

Was it wrong for a large army to invade and march into his region burning houses, barns and mills, shooting livestock and leaving them in the field, stealing horses and food like cured meat and butter? Did that result in innocent people starving? I think the church can clearly say that, and try to help the victims.

Should the church actively urge victims to surrender and say nothing about perpetrators? If not, should it draw distinctions?

I think these are insightful questions, are you willing to apply them consistently with the Russian invasion and the war in the days of my ancestor?

[Bootstrap]

Should the church actively urge victims to surrender and say nothing about perpetrators? If not, should it draw distinctions?

The church should focus on their own spiritual well being, namely forgive the perpetrators, and return good for evil. Surrender, is close to "give to him that asks" and, "if compelled to walk a mile, walk two".
Not relentlessly bark about the wicked things the enemy did, which makes forgiveness more difficult and makes hate more justified.

In practice, in the Ukraine thread, this often looks like focusing on the victim, urging surrender, and saying little about the perpetrator.

And that looks like blaming the victim.

[Bootstrap]

Should my great, great grandfather organization his church to formulate statements about the which side was the aggressor?

Was it wrong for a large army to invade and march into his region burning houses, barns and mills, shooting livestock and leaving them in the field, stealing horses and food like cured meat and butter? Did that result in innocent people starving? I think the church can clearly say that, and try to help the victims.

Should the church actively urge victims to surrender and say nothing about perpetrators? If not, should it draw distinctions?

I think these are insightful questions, are you willing to apply them consistently with the Russian invasion and the war in the days of my ancestor?

I think your question is built on a misunderstanding of what I am saying. I’m not claiming that “one side is good and the other is bad,” only that there is a moral difference between the side initiating unjust aggression and the side defending against it.

That difference doesn’t mean the defender is pure or above criticism — defenders can and do commit atrocities, and they bear responsibility for those. But that reality doesn’t erase the fact that the aggressor bears the greater moral burden for starting the conflict in the first place. As the war continues, they each have their own balance sheet.

So when I call for the church to name the wrong of aggression and to care for victims, that’s not the same as giving the defender a free pass. It’s simply refusing to flatten the moral landscape into “both sides are equally to blame,” which is not what I see in Scripture or in reality.

[Bootstrap]

In the Ukraine thread, I often got the sense there was more energy spent urging Ukraine to surrender than saying Russia should never have invaded.

That’s starting from the wrong moral footing.

Neither Russia nor Ukraine is asking our opinion, of course — but too often, it feels like some people look for ways to blame the policeman instead of the criminal.

No its not starting from the wrong moral footing. Its detaching government right to rule from morality.

So ... government should rule from immorality and injustice?