US Attacks Iran 2026

[Szdfan]

"International law" is something the largest, most powerful countries don't care about, are not parties to in any realistic sense, and in any sense do not observe.

There is no shared standard of global law, despite the wishes of many people to have some kind of one-world government. In war, might makes right: the most powerful people win, and the less-powerful people lose. That is the way of nations, governments, empires, and kings, and it has been such since the fall of Babel. God seems to have ordained it to be so, telling us there will be "Wars and rumours of wars".

I find it fascinating that you’ve argued elsewhere that God is the source of law and that society’s laws should follow God’s will and intentions, but when it comes to the power of the State to kill, there are no rules or restrictions. Why is that? Why would the area with the greatest potential for harm be the one with the fewest limits?

Most governments today claim not be following God’s law, although Iran’s regime does…

In any case, “international law” is not binding on the U.S. and basically doesn’t exist.

I understand that many governments don’t follow God’s law.

I’m asking whether you think they should, especially when it comes to the use of violence.

Do you believe there are actions a government should not take, even in war?

[JohnH]

I understand that many governments don’t follow God’s law.

I’m asking whether you think they should, especially when it comes to the use of violence.

All just law is derived from God's perfect law.

Sinful man often perverts God's perfect law, and then it becomes less-just or even unjust law.

Do you believe there are actions a government should not take, even in war?

All of God's children - all of the humans on earth - should accept and follow Christ and experience the joy and peace of the gospel, and then they won't need to war with one another anymore.

If they choose not to do that, war is simply about winning by any means necessary. It is literally using force to kill your opponent so that you "win".

[Szdfan]

I understand that many governments don’t follow God’s law.

I’m asking whether you think they should, especially when it comes to the use of violence.

All just law is derived from God's perfect law.

Sinful man often perverts God's perfect law, and then it becomes less-just or even unjust law.

Do you believe there are actions a government should not take, even in war?

All of God's children - all of the humans on earth - should accept and follow Christ and experience the joy and peace of the gospel, and then they won't need to war with one another anymore.

If they choose not to do that, war is simply about winning by any means necessary. It is literally using force to kill your opponent so that you "win".

I understand that in a perfect world there would be no war. I’m asking about the world we actually live in. Do you believe there are any actions a government should not take in war, or do you believe anything is permissible if it helps win?

[ken_sylvania]

I understand that many governments don’t follow God’s law.

I’m asking whether you think they should, especially when it comes to the use of violence.

All just law is derived from God's perfect law.

Sinful man often perverts God's perfect law, and then it becomes less-just or even unjust law.

Do you believe there are actions a government should not take, even in war?

All of God's children - all of the humans on earth - should accept and follow Christ and experience the joy and peace of the gospel, and then they won't need to war with one another anymore.

If they choose not to do that, war is simply about winning by any means necessary. It is literally using force to kill your opponent so that you "win".

I understand that in a perfect world there would be no war. I’m asking about the world we actually live in. Do you believe there are any actions a government should not take in war, or do you believe anything is permissible if it helps win?

Yes, I believe the people in government should not hate or kill anybody. They should love their enemies, feed their hungry enemies, etc.
If we don't use the moral framework that God gives us, any other kind of moral framework is like filthy rags.

I get the feeling that maybe you think there ought to be a rationalization where it's OK to rebel against Jesus' teachings up to a point, just not to go too far in being evil. Hopefully I'm wrong in that feeling.

[Szdfan]

All just law is derived from God's perfect law.

Sinful man often perverts God's perfect law, and then it becomes less-just or even unjust law.



All of God's children - all of the humans on earth - should accept and follow Christ and experience the joy and peace of the gospel, and then they won't need to war with one another anymore.

If they choose not to do that, war is simply about winning by any means necessary. It is literally using force to kill your opponent so that you "win".

I understand that in a perfect world there would be no war. I’m asking about the world we actually live in. Do you believe there are any actions a government should not take in war, or do you believe anything is permissible if it helps win?

Yes, I believe the people in government should not hate or kill anybody. They should love their enemies, feed their hungry enemies, etc.
If we don't use the moral framework that God gives us, any other kind of moral framework is like filthy rags.

I get the feeling that maybe you think there ought to be a rationalization where it's OK to rebel against Jesus' teachings up to a point, just not to go too far in being evil. Hopefully I'm wrong in that feeling.

I’m not trying to justify violence or ignore Jesus’ teachings. I’m asking about what should happen in the real world where wars already exist.

If governments are going to fight wars, do you think there should be limits on what they’re allowed to do? Should governments protect civilians or accept surrender? I’m not interested in justifying war — I’m interested in restraints and limits when it happens.

John seems to be saying that in war there are no real limits and that power decides. That doesn’t seem consistent with following the way of Jesus either.

[GaryK]

I understand that in a perfect world there would be no war. I’m asking about the world we actually live in. Do you believe there are any actions a government should not take in war, or do you believe anything is permissible if it helps win?

Yes, I believe the people in government should not hate or kill anybody. They should love their enemies, feed their hungry enemies, etc.
If we don't use the moral framework that God gives us, any other kind of moral framework is like filthy rags.

I get the feeling that maybe you think there ought to be a rationalization where it's OK to rebel against Jesus' teachings up to a point, just not to go too far in being evil. Hopefully I'm wrong in that feeling.

I’m not trying to justify violence or ignore Jesus’ teachings. I’m asking about what should happen in the real world where wars already exist.

If governments are going to fight wars, do you think there should be limits on what they’re allowed to do? Should governments protect civilians or accept surrender? I’m not interested in justifying war — I’m interested in restraints and limits when it happens.

John seems to be saying that in war there are no real limits and that power decides. That doesn’t seem consistent with following the way of Jesus either.

I took note of the way ken_sylvania said "the people in government" should not hate or kill anybody. I believe any person in government who comes up against Jesus' teaching on this matter has a choice to make. Either get out of government, because it's impossible for earthly governments to function like Jesus' Kingdom functions or be held accountable for rejecting the way of Jesus. IMO, it's an either/or situation, not a both/and one.

[Szdfan]

Yes, I believe the people in government should not hate or kill anybody. They should love their enemies, feed their hungry enemies, etc.
If we don't use the moral framework that God gives us, any other kind of moral framework is like filthy rags.

I get the feeling that maybe you think there ought to be a rationalization where it's OK to rebel against Jesus' teachings up to a point, just not to go too far in being evil. Hopefully I'm wrong in that feeling.

I’m not trying to justify violence or ignore Jesus’ teachings. I’m asking about what should happen in the real world where wars already exist.

If governments are going to fight wars, do you think there should be limits on what they’re allowed to do? Should governments protect civilians or accept surrender? I’m not interested in justifying war — I’m interested in restraints and limits when it happens.

John seems to be saying that in war there are no real limits and that power decides. That doesn’t seem consistent with following the way of Jesus either.

I took note of the way ken_sylvania said "the people in government" should not hate or kill anybody. I believe any person in government who comes up against Jesus' teaching on this matter has a choice to make. Either get out of government, because it's impossible for earthly governments to function like Jesus' Kingdom functions or be held accountable for rejecting the way of Jesus. IMO, it's an either/or situation, not a both/and one.

I agree that there’s an incompatibility between following Jesus and serving in government.

But none of that answers my question. Governments do exist and they fight wars.

Are there any restraints on the use of violence by the State? Are there no limits at all and power can do whatever it wants to win?

[Ernie]

I agree with Ken and Gary that the people in government should obey Jesus teachings and should exit the government whenever that is not possible.

I agree with JohnH that we don't expect governments as an entity to follow Jesus' teachings.

I agree with Szdfan that governments are not free to do whatever they want to do in order to win wars.

While I believe that all sin is sin, God, in both the OT and NT, seems to have special concern for the defenseless. And it appears that greater judgment is reserved for those who harm the poor, the guiltless, and the innocent. Blood does cry from the ground.

[JohnH]

I understand that in a perfect world there would be no war. I’m asking about the world we actually live in. Do you believe there are any actions a government should not take in war, or do you believe anything is permissible if it helps win?

There is no good way to go around killing people, firing missiles, dropping bombs, launching artillery shells, sinking boats, and so forth. Jesus teaches us not to do these things, and "Truly, these times of ignorance God overlooked, but now commands all men everywhere to repent".

Is anything "permissible"? Whoever is the most powerful sets the "rules" and basically gets to do whatever they want. That's how wars work. Someone who is less powerful sometimes has a lot of leverage to use offence instead of defence, like using terrorism against civilians, so they can get to set some rules too.

You keep saying there should be "rules" or "laws" around war... but who's going to enforce them?

Are there any restraints on the use of violence by the State? Are there no limits at all and power can do whatever it wants to win?

There is no one to restrain the use of violence except a more powerful person who would use even more violence. Who do you expect to enforce these things. The World Police?

[ken_sylvania]

I agree that there’s an incompatibility between following Jesus and serving in government.

But none of that answers my question. Governments do exist and they fight wars.

Are there any restraints on the use of violence by the State? Are there no limits at all and power can do whatever it wants to win?

Any physical restraints? Sure, a greater or more effective power. Any moral restraint? That sounds like asking for permission to do things that Jesus says are wrong. If it's morally wrong to defy Jesus' commands, then it's morally wrong to go to war.

Your question seems analogous to saying "In a perfect world, men would not be physically violent toward their spouses. However, we don't live in a perfect world. Bad marriages do exist, and men do hit their wives. Are there any restraints on the use of violence by a husband against his wife?"
The answer, of course, is that physical violence of any kind is not acceptable. Not that breaking bones is unacceptable. It seems to me that you are asking for someone to give an answer such as "Any violence that results in broken bones or permanent disfigurement is unacceptable." I don't think an answer like that is acceptable whether the scenario is war or domestic violence.