dhosek@euler.claremont.edu (Don Hosek) (05/26/91)
In article <May.24.00.24.08.1991.29626@athos.rutgers.edu>, krueger@writeon.physics.arizona.edu (Theodore Krueger) writes: > In article <May.22.00.22.08.1991.635@athos.rutgers.edu> > jclark@sdcc6.ucsd.edu (John Clark) writes: >>And why not. The 'just' war seems to have been an invention of >>Augustine to allow the 'state' to become compatible with >>Christianity. > I disagree. If Judaism has a historical influence on Christianity > (and I think that it does, since our God is the same guy as theirs) > God (in the OT) has decreed many wars. I think that that would make > them 'just'. It seems obvious to me that our disagreement is simply > that we have different requirements for what would constitute a 'just' > war. Actually, the historical evidence indicates that the early Christians were highly pacificistic and, being the small persecuted "cult" that they were in the first few centuries, were able to get away with non-participation in wars. As Christianity grew and became the official religion of the Roman Empire, this didn't work out as well and just war theory (which has a status as nothing more than theory in the RC church) grew out of that problem. As an interesting aside, there are many who argue that even if we accept Augustine's just war theory, we will find that there is no such thing as a just war in history. There have been some that have started out as just wars (e.g., World War II), but the final tolls on non-participants (consider the nuclear bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and fire bombing of both Japan and Germany which not only killed many civilians but killed them in particularly unpleasant ways). I personally am not comfortable with the idea of claiming the battles of the Old Testament (particularly the early books) as justification for a modern war. Who is going to claim that George Bush, Mikhail Gorbachev or any other modern leader has a direct line to God like Joshua did? If we're going to look for a model for a war in the Old Testament, why not think about the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah which was not to take place if just one innocent person was to be found. In my opinion the death of one innocent person is too high a price to pay for any cause, especially if we are going to claim the titles of Christian and children of Abraham. -dh -- Don Hosek dhosek@ymir.claremont.edu Quixote Digital Typography 714-625-0147
daly@strawber.princeton.edu (John Daly) (05/27/91)
In article <May.26.01.56.56.1991.13494@athos.rutgers.edu>, dhosek@euler.claremont.edu (Don Hosek) writes: |> |> [Some text pertaining to the theory of "Just War" is deleted.] |> |> If we're going to look for a model for a war in the Old |> Testament, why not think about the destruction of Sodom and |> Gomorrah which was not to take place if just one innocent person |> was to be found. In my opinion the death of one innocent person |> is too high a price to pay for any cause, especially if we are |> going to claim the titles of Christian and children of Abraham. Who is innocent? Who other than God is qualified to make that kind of judgement? I ask these questions because it seems to me the very essence of war is disagreement and uncertainty. Without these there could be no wars. If a woman walks into my yard, is she innocent? If she breaks into my house, is she innocent? What if she tries to steal something of mine? What if she has a weapon? What if she murders my wife? Was my wife innocent? Then she turns to murder my children, and finally me. Were they innocent? Was I? Now, review the same sequence of events, but this time I have a gun. I can terminate the chain of events at any point by murdering the woman. At what point should I do so? At what point does she become "not innocent"? At what point does my retaliation become "just"? Is the death of an innocent person too high a price to pay for saving the life of another innocent person? What about two others? Three? Even if it were possible to conduct warfare in such a way that no innocents were ever killed, who among us is qualified to decide whom to spare? As we sit back to contemplate these issues are there even more innocents being killed as a result of our inaction? Questions like these go through the minds of leaders about to declare war. Leaders must answer them as best they know how. I sympathize with them because *I* don't know the answers. God does.
krueger@writeon.physics.arizona.edu (Theodore Krueger) (06/02/91)
In article <May.26.01.56.56.1991.13494@athos.rutgers.edu> dhosek@euler.claremont.edu (Don Hosek) writes >In my opinion the death of one innocent person is too high a price >to pay for any cause, especially if we are going to claim the titles >of Christian and children of Abraham. Three comments on the above statement: 1) What would you do if the government wanted to execute all christians for not wearing the mark of the beast? Would you watch your children die? Would you fight back? 2) Do you own an automobile? Thousands of innocent people are killed every year for the _cause_ of rapid transportation. 3) You are completely entitled to your opinion, but in order to convince me, you must present scriptural evidence that God wants us to be pacifistic as you claim. Ted -- Be Excellent To Each Other
dhosek@hmcvax.claremont.edu (Don Hosek) (06/03/91)
In article <Jun.2.01.35.20.1991.16419@athos.rutgers.edu>, krueger@writeon.physics.arizona.edu (Theodore Krueger) writes: > In article <May.26.01.56.56.1991.13494@athos.rutgers.edu> > dhosek@euler.claremont.edu (Don Hosek) writes >>In my opinion the death of one innocent person is too high a price >>to pay for any cause, especially if we are going to claim the titles >>of Christian and children of Abraham. > Three comments on the above statement: > 1) What would you do if the government wanted to execute all christians > for not wearing the mark of the beast? Would you watch your children > die? Would you fight back? If I fought back, it would be more a sign of weakness than of faith. You ask for Biblical quotations to support my perspective, here are a few: John 18,10-11 (TEV): Simon Peter, who had a sword drew it and struck the High Priest's slave, cutting off his right ear. THe name of the slave was Malchus. Jesus said to Peter, "Put your sword back in its place! Do you think that I will not drink the cup of suffering which my Father has given me?" (See also, the parallels: Matthew 26,51-52; Mark 14,47-48 (the only passage which doesn't have Jesus rebuking the eager disciple); Luke 22,49-51 (note that here Jesus _helps_ one of those in the arresting party!)). All throughout Acts. Name one case where the apostles reacted with violence to their persecution. Better yet, since you bring up the mark of the beast, name one place in Revelations. Read Daniel. Where are the Jews reacting with violence to the Babylonians? How about coming up with quotations to indicate your apparent perspective that under persecution, God's people should seek to kill their oppressors? Non-violence doesn't mean giving in to evil. It means speaking out against it. It means being saying that there's something wrong about a parade that features weapons of mass destruction as a big attraction, but doesn't even mention the _Americans_ that died let alone the thousands of Iraqis, Kurds, Palestinians and Kuwaitis. > 2) Do you own an automobile? Thousands of innocent people are killed every > year for the _cause_ of rapid transportation. What's your point? Are these people being murdered so that cars and highways can be manufactured. If I were aware, that car company X employed such practices in the manufacture of its automobiles, I wouldn't buy their cars and I'd do my best to make others aware of this so they wouldn't. Or perhaps you're referring to automobile accidents. Does my owning a car somehow contribute to the accidental death of someone in New Jersey? I am a reluctanct car owner (and only for five months at that). I drive as little as I can, use gasahol, and lobby for public transportation. You do what you can. > 3) You are completely entitled to your opinion, but in order to convince me, > you must present scriptural evidence that God wants us to be pacifistic > as you claim. How about scriptural evidence that he *doesn't*? -dh Don Hosek dhosek@ymir.claremont.edu Quixote Digital Typography 714-625-0147
krueger@writeon.physics.arizona.edu (Theodore Krueger) (06/05/91)
In article <Jun.3.02.30.47.1991.3469@athos.rutgers.edu> Don Hosek writes: >You ask for Biblical quotations to support my perspective, >here are a few: >John 18,10-11 (TEV): Simon Peter, who had a sword drew it and >struck the High Priest's slave, cutting off his right ear. THe etc. I believe that Jesus is telling Peter not to stop the people who want to take him away to be crucified (much as Jesus to Peter "get thee behind me Satan" when Peter earlier tried to talk him out of the crucifiction). >Better yet, since you bring up the mark of the beast, name >one place in Revelations. That wasn't me. You must have me confused with someone else. >How about coming up with quotations to indicate your apparent >perspective that under persecution, God's people should seek to >kill their oppressors? Again, you misunderstand me. I am not claiming that any _individual_ christian should react in a _killing_ manner under any circumstances. I am simply claiming that there _are_ circumstances when some people are being threatened by an agressor that it is not unchristian to defend the people being threatened. >Non-violence doesn't mean giving in to evil. It means speaking >out against it. You seem to imply that killing is evil. Are you aware that there is more than one concept of killing in the Bible? Here are two: Murder -- bad (10 commandments -- Thou Shalt Not Murder) Self Defense -- justified (Levitical setting up of cities of sanctuary) There are also many examples where God considers the motivations of the heart. >Are these people being murdered so that cars and highways can be >manufactured. Again your use of the word murder. Just because one person dies at the hands of another does not imply murder. If it does, of what use is the word kill since murder covers all. >How about scriptural evidence that he *doesn't*? Numerous examples of God telling the Hebrews to _kill_ witches, people who worship other gods, tribes who lived in the promised land, including phrases such as "don't leave any of them alive" (paraphrased, I don't have my Bible at work. I'm talking about the time when a member of the army kept some of the loot when God had told them to destroy it all). Now don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that we should act this way today. I'm just giving evidence against the pacifistic nature that you have implied upon God. Perhaps there is another underlying theme to this all, perhaps clarifying my opinion on this theme will help you to understand my overall viewpoints and motivations. I believe that loving people does _not_ mean letting them do whatever they want (read that as a personal condemnation of extra-marital sex, drugs, etc.). Loving people means desiring for all people to do what is best for them. A next step from this is involvement in other people's lives, not separating ourselves, for example from all of the people in Kuwait who were being threatened by Hussein. IMHO we were not in the Persian Gulf solely for oil. I believe that Hussein would have purposefully killed multiplied times the number of innocents who were accidentally killed by our actions, and that our actions saved many innocent lives. Final question, is it a christian action to allow innocents to die by our inaction? And if not, what is the christian thing to do if some will be killed, but more will be saved by violent action? -- Be Excellent To Each Other