US Attacks Iran 2026

[joshuabgood]

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.

Another path, is simply stay in whatever position you are and start following the way of Jesus and let the results take you where they will. As long as you can be in that spot, be a disciple in that spot. In some spots, you'll exited plenty quickly without needing to exit. But as long as you are there, maybe stay, and be the salt and light.

The ways of Jesus work better in every way than do the kingdoms of this world. Including restraining evil and fighting violence. But...I have made this argument before and mostly been unsuccessful on this board. =). In my view, the statements by Paul in Romans are descriptive and don't create a "divine right" of sanctified violence. They only serve to illustrate that God in his sovereignty can use the most wicked things - ie governments of this world - in ways that they don't even know about to accomplish good. Exhibit A - the crucifixion. Exhibit B Pharaoh. However, that doesn't legitimize or make godly in anyway said use of power/coercion. There is no salvation in violence. Not in the past. Not in the present. And not in the age to come. Salvation is by way of the cross...the way of the suffering servant. In losing your life you find it.

[Soloist]

I think in my mind, the Turk is a true Turk. The American is not a true American.

The Iranians have never made a moral American view theirs. America had declared morals and secretly didn’t follow them.
Now America is openly not following those morals.

Has anything changed? No.

[Silentreader]

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.

Another path, is simply stay in whatever position you are and start following the way of Jesus and let the results take you where they will. As long as you can be in that spot, be a disciple in that spot. In some spots, you'll exited plenty quickly without needing to exit. But as long as you are there, maybe stay, and be the salt and light.

The ways of Jesus work better in every way than do the kingdoms of this world. Including restraining evil and fighting violence. But...I have made this argument before and mostly been unsuccessful on this board. =). In my view, the statements by Paul in Romans are descriptive and don't create a "divine right" of sanctified violence. They only serve to illustrate that God in his sovereignty can use the most wicked things - ie governments of this world - in ways that they don't even know about to accomplish good. Exhibit A - the crucifixion. Exhibit B Pharaoh. However, that doesn't legitimize or make godly in anyway said use of power/coercion. There is no salvation in violence. Not in the past. Not in the present. And not in the age to come. Salvation is by way of the cross...the way of the suffering servant. In losing your life you find it.

I often disagree with you but here you make some very good points. I think that the passage in Luke 3:14 of the soldiers coming to John the Baptist illustrates your first paragraph.
And that Romans 13, even though advocating submission is also showing a contrast to submission to Christ and/or the Body.

[ken_sylvania]

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.

Another path, is simply stay in whatever position you are and start following the way of Jesus and let the results take you where they will. As long as you can be in that spot, be a disciple in that spot. In some spots, you'll exited plenty quickly without needing to exit. But as long as you are there, maybe stay, and be the salt and light.

The ways of Jesus work better in every way than do the kingdoms of this world. Including restraining evil and fighting violence. But...I have made this argument before and mostly been unsuccessful on this board. =). In my view, the statements by Paul in Romans are descriptive and don't create a "divine right" of sanctified violence. They only serve to illustrate that God in his sovereignty can use the most wicked things - ie governments of this world - in ways that they don't even know about to accomplish good. Exhibit A - the crucifixion. Exhibit B Pharaoh. However, that doesn't legitimize or make godly in anyway said use of power/coercion. There is no salvation in violence. Not in the past. Not in the present. And not in the age to come. Salvation is by way of the cross...the way of the suffering servant. In losing your life you find it.

I think that's pretty much spot on.

[Szdfan]

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.

I'm not arguing for permission. I'm not arguing for a criteria that makes it morally acceptable to go to war. I'm arguing for damage control when war happens.

My position is: war is bad; unrestrained war is worse. Limiting harm is not the same as justifying the act.

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.

Okay...but when a man beats his wife, is our response, "Oh well, that's what the ungodly do? They need Jesus.” Or do we call the police or offer the spouse help? Do we stop it, intervene, protect the victim and hold the abuser accountable?

What I'm seeing here is that when the US accidentally bombs a school or Pete Hegseth advocates war crimes, the response isn't, this is wrong and why it's wrong, but a shrug and a dismissal. If we agree that violence is wrong, then how it’s carried out still matters. Otherwise, aren’t we just accepting that once war starts, anything goes?

[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.

I'm not arguing for permission. I'm not arguing for a criteria that makes it morally acceptable to go to war. I'm arguing for damage control when war happens.

My position is: war is bad; unrestrained war is worse. Limiting harm is not the same as justifying the act.

But aren't you implying that there is a certain threshold for violence at which somebody else should step in and either violently or non-violently prevent further escalation of violence?

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.

Okay...but when a man beats his wife, is our response, "Oh well, that's what the ungodly do? They need Jesus.” Or do we call the police or offer the spouse help? Do we stop it, intervene, protect the victim and hold the abuser accountable?

What I'm seeing here is that when the US accidentally bombs a school or Pete Hegseth advocates war crimes, the response isn't, this is wrong and why it's wrong, but a shrug and a dismissal. If we agree that violence is wrong, then how it’s carried out still matters. Otherwise, aren’t we just accepting that once war starts, anything goes?

When an Iranian man beats his wife, I do nothing about it. If my neighbor beats his wife, if I know about it I offer what assistance I can. If I call the police, they come and use greater violence on him to make him stop his violence, or else they make a large enough show of force that he decides resistance is useless.

But as it relates to my analogy, my response to the vast majority of domestic violence cases is to say "they are acting like the ungodly will act - they need Jesus."

[JohnH]

I'm not arguing for permission. I'm not arguing for a criteria that makes it morally acceptable to go to war. I'm arguing for damage control when war happens.

My position is: war is bad; unrestrained war is worse. Limiting harm is not the same as justifying the act.

So who do you propose does the limiting? Some kind of World Police?

Okay...but when a man beats his wife, is our response, "Oh well, that's what the ungodly do? They need Jesus.” Or do we call the police or offer the spouse help? Do we stop it, intervene, protect the victim and hold the abuser accountable?

... calling the police is appealing to people with bigger guns, bigger firepower, and more willingness to use violence to stop the less-powerful person (the wife-beater) from also engaging in violence.

So who do you propose somehow restrains the U.S. government and the democrat will of the American people who elect Congress and the President?

And how do you propose to give them enough firepower to overwhelm the U.S. military plus the American voters?

What I'm seeing here is that when the US accidentally bombs a school or Pete Hegseth advocates war crimes, the response isn't, this is wrong and why it's wrong, but a shrug and a dismissal. If we agree that violence is wrong, then how it’s carried out still matters. Otherwise, aren’t we just accepting that once war starts, anything goes?

"War crimes" are something that winners of wars prosecute against losers of wars.

[Szdfan]

I'm not arguing for permission. I'm not arguing for a criteria that makes it morally acceptable to go to war. I'm arguing for damage control when war happens.

My position is: war is bad; unrestrained war is worse. Limiting harm is not the same as justifying the act.

So who do you propose does the limiting? Some kind of World Police?

Okay...but when a man beats his wife, is our response, "Oh well, that's what the ungodly do? They need Jesus.” Or do we call the police or offer the spouse help? Do we stop it, intervene, protect the victim and hold the abuser accountable?

... calling the police is appealing to people with bigger guns, bigger firepower, and more willingness to use violence to stop the less-powerful person (the wife-beater) from also engaging in violence.

So who do you propose somehow restrains the U.S. government and the democrat will of the American people who elect Congress and the President?

And how do you propose to give them enough firepower to overwhelm the U.S. military plus the American voters?

What I'm seeing here is that when the US accidentally bombs a school or Pete Hegseth advocates war crimes, the response isn't, this is wrong and why it's wrong, but a shrug and a dismissal. If we agree that violence is wrong, then how it’s carried out still matters. Otherwise, aren’t we just accepting that once war starts, anything goes?

"War crimes" are something that winners of wars prosecute against losers of wars.

I’m not advocating for a world police. While the US often violates its own stated standards in war, at least those standards existed and could be appealed to when it crossed them.

What concerns me now is the open rejection of those standards. In the past, the US has at least sometimes held its own military accountable for war crimes. I’m not convinced that will continue if the attitude becomes “anything goes.”

Restraint doesn’t only come from a superior power. It can come from laws, institutions, allies who refuse to participate, and ordinary people who refuse to go along with it. Restraint comes from Allies who refuse to get drawn into the war. Public pressure matters. Protest matters. Historically, movements like the Vietnam War protests played a role in ending a war. The US’s recognition of its mistakes had helped foster at least some sort of reconciliation with Vietnam.

The current war against Iran is deeply unpopular. It’s even starting to split the MAGA base who believed Trump when he promised no new foreign wars. That’s also a form of accountability and if the war goes badly, will come at a political cost to Trump and the Republicans.

So what also matters then is having the language to describe what’s happening. Calling something a “war crime” may not put someone in court, but it names the reality. Saying “the powerful get to do whatever they want” doesn’t just describe the world, it’s a self-fulfilling prophecy reinforces the powerful by removing any basis for critique.

Scripture itself models this. The prophets didn’t control the kings of Israel, but they still named their injustices and unfaithfulness. That kind of moral language matters.

Do you believe there are actions in war that are wrong even if no one is powerful enough to stop them?

[ken_sylvania]

Do you believe there are actions in war that are wrong even if no one is powerful enough to stop them?

Yes. Hating people, killing people, destroying food and property of others are all wrong.

[Szdfan]

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.

I'm not arguing for permission. I'm not arguing for a criteria that makes it morally acceptable to go to war. I'm arguing for damage control when war happens.

My position is: war is bad; unrestrained war is worse. Limiting harm is not the same as justifying the act.

But aren't you implying that there is a certain threshold for violence at which somebody else should step in and either violently or non-violently prevent further escalation of violence?

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.

Okay...but when a man beats his wife, is our response, "Oh well, that's what the ungodly do? They need Jesus.” Or do we call the police or offer the spouse help? Do we stop it, intervene, protect the victim and hold the abuser accountable?

What I'm seeing here is that when the US accidentally bombs a school or Pete Hegseth advocates war crimes, the response isn't, this is wrong and why it's wrong, but a shrug and a dismissal. If we agree that violence is wrong, then how it’s carried out still matters. Otherwise, aren’t we just accepting that once war starts, anything goes?

When an Iranian man beats his wife, I do nothing about it. If my neighbor beats his wife, if I know about it I offer what assistance I can. If I call the police, they come and use greater violence on him to make him stop his violence, or else they make a large enough show of force that he decides resistance is useless.

But as it relates to my analogy, my response to the vast majority of domestic violence cases is to say "they are acting like the ungodly will act - they need Jesus."

I think this helps clarify the differences between us.

What I hear is that you place responsibility primarily in proximity. In other words, what your responsibility is limited to what you personally can do in your immediate area.

I place responsibility in harm and power. For me the question is: what actions cause the greatest harm and who has the ability to prevent it? So for me, the fact that I personally can’t stop something doesn’t mean there are no standards, no responsibility or need to name it as wrong.

Otherwise, I think what happens is that there is less accountability for the greater harms the powerful commit than for my neighbors and that seems really backwards to me.