Jesus Really is Anti-War

[Jason]

I'm not going to pass judgment on this specific individual. But clearly if a person was aware of the atrocities Hittler was committing and still fought to support him during WWII, the 12th article of faith is not going to help that individual escape divine judgment.

I doubt that very many Germans in WWII were fighting "for Hitler".

Likewise, I imagine very few soldiers today are fighting "for President Obama!"

I believe most soldiers fight first for their fellow soldiers, then for their country, and only then for some other cause.

Atrocities are committed on every side of every war, but that does not make a war unjust, or the armed forces of an entire nation guilty and subject to divine judgement.

I think your view is too absolute.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

calmoriah:

Agreed, and it does go back a lot further that the last 50 years. May I introduce you to Major General Smedley Darlington Butler.

WAR IS A RACKET

WAR is a racket. It always has been.

So...I say,

You mean like a tennis racket?

[thesometimesaint]

BCSpace:

Yep just my fantasy that George Bush said: "No, we've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with September the 11th," Bush said. "

http://www.seattlepi.com/national/140133_bushiraq18.html

Another one of my left wing fantasies I guess.

The 2003 invasion of Iraq, led by US army General Tommy Franks, began under the

codename "Operation Iraqi Liberation", later renamed "Operation Iraqi ...

and from Ari Fleischer:

I can just tell you, just before I came out here, there was a report on one of the cables that showed an Iraqi citizen saying on camera, "Saddam no, America" -- and he gave a thumbs-up, like that. So we're starting to see some of the more visible signals now from the public of Iraq as the operation of Iraqi Liberation goes forward and people feel more free to speak out and I think you'll see more of that.

[Jeff K.]

I think what David was referring to was not the individual of Christ/Jehovah, but the claims made for him by the writers of certain scriptures. Just how wise is it to assume various scriptures to be reliable in their descriptions of God interacting with men.

I assume that you don't believe that all claims of God ordained war made outside of scriptures are valid. Do you believe we should automatically assume that claims for God ordained war made inside of scripture (especially in scripture we don't know the line of transmission for) are without question truly God ordained/directed?

I presume that sometimes wars are just, and that Jesus was not anti-war, rather he was anti-unjust war and sometimes it will be hard to differentiate between the just war and unjust war since men can be convincing on both sides of such arguements. So it is just as wrong to state Christ is anti-war as it is to state Christ is pro-war. Both depend on interpretation. I found the irony of using the Old Testament to justify a New Testament Christ which in effect contradicts the Old Testament Christ. Christ is the Prince of Peace, but peace and surrender and pacifism are not all the same word.

[Jeff K.]

I'm not going to pass judgment on this specific individual. But clearly if a person was aware of the atrocities Hittler was committing and still fought to support him during WWII, the 12th article of faith is not going to help that individual escape divine judgment.

And if you don't fight but pay taxes? Isn't that also support? If you blithely stand aside and allow evil to occur, do you not expose yourself then to the such judgement as you have mentioned?

One can interpret even a lack of action to be support. So I believe you end up in a fallacious corner, so to speak.

[David Bokovoy]

I doubt that very many Germans in WWII were fighting "for Hitler".

Likewise, I imagine very few soldiers today are fighting "for President Obama!"

I believe most soldiers fight first for their fellow soldiers, then for their country, and only then for some other cause.

Atrocities are committed on every side of every war, but that does not make a war unjust, or the armed forces of an entire nation guilty and subject to divine judgement.

I think your view is too absolute.

Hittler's crimes against humanity were not reflective of the "atrocities committed on every side of every war." But I'm not God, so we'll have to wait and see what happens to those who knew that Hittler was carrying out a mass genocide, murdering innocent men, women, and children for the mere fact that they were Jewish, and yet still fought a war to keep Hitler in power. My view may be too absolute, but Jesus did say something about a millstone awaiting such folks.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

And if you don't fight but pay taxes? Isn't that also support? If you blithely stand aside and allow evil to occur, do you not expose yourself then to the such judgement as you have mentioned?

One can interpret even a lack of action to be support. So I believe you end up in a fallacious corner, so to speak.

"If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice."

[thesometimesaint]

Jeff K.:

The root word of pacifism is peace.

[David Bokovoy]

And if you don't fight but pay taxes? Isn't that also support? If you blithely stand aside and allow evil to occur, do you not expose yourself then to the such judgement as you have mentioned?

One can interpret even a lack of action to be support. So I believe you end up in a fallacious corner, so to speak.

Indeed, if one knew the crimes Hittler was committing against innocent men, women, and children, and stood blithely aside and allowed that evil to occur, without doing something to resist, I believe God will hold that person accountable for his or her lack of actions.

[Obiwan]

Are you claiming these reasons were not involved at all or just that they weren't the primary reason (because I have a hard time believing that oil was not involved at all when a great deal of effort was made to secure the oil wells, etc. as soon as possible).

They were very "minor" reasons..... With only a significance because obviously just allowing the oil wells to be destroyed when we invaded would have a serious impact on both Iraq and other area economies. The point I'm making is liberals claim it was a war for oil. NOT even close to the actual reasons. Maybe only 10% relevancy. Especially when it's not even the U.S. that is benefiting from the oil. They would have more of a case if we actually got the oil, but we aren't. Other county's get the vast majority of it.

Ach, I am letting myself be drawn down a rabbit hole....I probably should delete this post but I am curious as to what exactly Obiwan's position is, if it's as black and white as his responses seem to indicate.

It IS black and white as the ultimate goals and reasons.... Doing the right thing first, doing the right thing that will both benefit others and us, and then on down the list. Oil is several steps down in importance. Take the civil war for example.... Yes, one of the main points was succession, but the moral cause was ending slavery. Those who try to minimize it down to making stopping succession as the main point, miss the whole point. The North wasn't going to just allow those who are also their people create a whole new country entirely based and supported by slavery. The liberals back then made similar arguments, that it was "just about the money" etc. etc. I just don't like those who bear false witness, from anti-mormons OR mormons who are liberal.

[volgadon]

Hittler's crimes against humanity were not reflective of the "atrocities committed on every side of every war." But I'm not God, so we'll have to wait and see what happens to those who knew that Hittler was carrying out a mass genocide, murdering innocent men, women, and children for the mere fact that they were Jewish, and yet still fought a war to keep Hitler in power. My view may be too absolute, but Jesus did say something about a millstone awaiting such folks.

Agreed. An Austrian UN officer of our acquantiance once talked about his father, who was a Nazi officer. My parents tried to be tactful and said well wasn't it just because that was how life was then? "Oh no," Replied our friend, "he knew exactly what he was doing, no excuses for him."

[Jeff K.]

Jeff K.:

The root word of pacifism is peace.

Doesn't matter, the meaning is not defined soley by the rootword.

Peace after conquest is peace is it not? And yet it is not pacifistic.

The root word for Pacific is peace, does not find the Pacific with its harsh storms and tiger sharks to be "peaceful"? Of course not. Rootwords are not necessarily the defining characteristic of a word's meaning.

[David Bokovoy]

So, according to your perceeption, Jesus is against our fighting in the cultural war on the family?

In terms of scale, then you must view Jesus as opposed to a father personally "waring", to the point of physical violence and death, against evil men who may seek to rape and kill his family and steal or destroy his property, his freedoms and liberties?

And, you must then view Jesus as opposed to Nephi "waring" against Laban and taking his life.

To you, Jesus must have been opposed to the intents and purposes of Zions March organized and led by Joseph, as well as the Nauvoo Leagion. Right?

While I sympathize with opposing war as a general rule, I personally think it unwise and overly extreme to be opposed absolutely and universally. In fact, I believe there are exceptional cases where Jesus would think there is a moral imparative to go to war. But, to each their own.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Wade, you chopped my quote. A person can be universally opposed to war and still recognize that there are a few extreme cases which sadly do require physical acts of violence to protect the innocent.

[Jeff K.]

Indeed, if one knew the crimes Hittler was committing against innocent men, women, and children, and stood blithely aside and allowed that evil to occur, without doing something to resist, I believe God will hold that person accountable for his or her lack of actions.

One needn't know about the deathcamps to be held accountable. Unless you feel "more room" was justifiable. There is no end to the slippery slope you have defined.

In modern parlance, if you feel the Iraq war to be unjust, and still pay taxes rather than go to jail, then you are culpable (based on what you have presented). Christ is both more pragmatic and less the pacifist.

[Jeff K.]

Wade, you chopped my quote. A person can be universally opposed to war and still recognize that there are a few extreme cases which sadly do require physical acts of violence to protect the innocent.

No, if you believe war to be universally bad, then it is always wrong, not almost always.

[Jason]

Wade, you chopped my quote. A person can be universally opposed to war and still recognize that there are a few extreme cases which sadly do require physical acts of violence to protect the innocent.

If you recognize that there are times that require going to war (to protect the innocent) then I don't think you could be said to be universally opposed to war.

[David Bokovoy]

Doesn't matter, the meaning is not defined soley by the rootword.

Peace after conquest is peace is it not? And yet it is not pacifistic.

The root word for Pacific is peace, does not find the Pacific with its harsh storms and tiger sharks to be "peaceful"? Of course not. Rootwords are not necessarily the defining characteristic of a word's meaning.

Ok, stick to definitions. You honestly believe that Jesus is not a pacifist, i.e. "one who believes disputes between nations should and can be settled peacefully." Have you even read the NT?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Ok, stick to definitions. You honestly believe that Jesus is not a pacifist, i.e. "one who believes disputes between nations should and can be settled peacefully." Have you even read the NT?

It is idealism to believe that this is going to happen very often in today's world. Maybe if we just meet with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and tell him not to blow up the Israels he will listen.

I think we should try and we do try to go about things peacfully but sometimes that is not enough.

[Obiwan]

I doubt that very many Germans in WWII were fighting "for Hitler".

Likewise, I imagine very few soldiers today are fighting "for President Obama!"

I believe most soldiers fight first for their fellow soldiers, then for their country, and only then for some other cause.

Atrocities are committed on every side of every war, but that does not make a war unjust, or the armed forces of an entire nation guilty and subject to divine judgement.

I think your view is too absolute.

I will have to kinda disagree with you here.

Maybe half of the country wasn't really fighting for Hitler, but the rest were, in relation to the Nationalistic Pride he created, interestingly similar to Obama and his followers. Of course, the difference is, is that this still fortunately still is America, as well the vast majority of those in the military are conservatives. So, of course they aren't fighting for Obama, but for our Nations Ideals. Even the liberals in the military aren't likely fighting for Obama, cause a different situation obviously than Hitler.

Also, soldiers actually tend to fight for an Ideology/Idea first, then for their family, their country, etc.

The Hitler time period many like Obama were brainwashed to believe a certain ideology, and that is where their actual allegiance lies. Of course, after, many realized that they actually were deceived. But, don't forget, there was a "East" and a "West" Germany after the war, you know the Wall and all that came down??? East Germany was much of the remnant of the Hitler ideology, Communist, Socialist etc. while the West was more Democratic.

[David Bokovoy]

No, if you believe war to be universally bad, then it is always wrong, not almost always.

In a telestial setting, something can be universally bad, yet still in rare instances qualify as a "necessary evil."

[David Bokovoy]

It is idealism to believe that this is going to happen very often in today's world.

To quote a famous 20th century poet, "You may say that I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one. I hope someday you'll join us, and the world will be as one."

[wenglund]

Wade, you chopped my quote. A person can be universally opposed to war and still recognize that there are a few extreme cases which sadly do require physical acts of violence to protect the innocent.

I'm a bit confused, then. How can you have an absolute and universal "anti", and yet permit a few extreme cases?

Are you sure you are not thinking in terms of a general rule (which reasonably allows for a few extreme exceptions) rather than an absolute and universal "anti-war" (which by definition doesnt allow for exceptions)?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[thesometimesaint]

Jeff K.:

It is my fault that a beautiful word like Pacifism has been corrupted to include things that it is not.

Shalom

[David Bokovoy]

I'm a bit confused, then. How can you have an absolute and universal "anti", and yet permit a few extreme cases?

Are you sure you are not thinking in terms of a general rule (which reasonably allows for a few extreme exceptions) rather than an absolute and universal "anti-war" (which by definition doesnt allow for exceptions)?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

See post #95.

[Jeff K.]

Ok, stick to definitions. You honestly believe that Jesus is not a pacifist, i.e. "one who believes disputes between nations should and can be settled peacefully." Have you even read the NT?

Have you read the Old Testament? Or do you discount it?