War - what is it good for?

antiskeptic

Nick Park wrote:

I could not vote for unlimited abortion for the same reason that I couldn't vote for the death penalty, or support military warfare. I believe killing people is wrong.

You're Winston Churchill in 1939. Poland has just been invaded..

What do you do?

frash

Absolutely nothing (Say it again, why'all)

antiskeptic

frash wrote: »

Absolutely nothing (Say it again, why'all)

I said Churchill, not Chamberlain

frash

antiskeptic wrote: »

I said Churchill, not Chamberlain

Not Chamberlain either - more Edwin Starr

Peregrinus

antiskeptic wrote: »

You're Winston Churchill in 1939. Poland has just been invaded..

What do you do?

Well, worth pointing that what was actually done - fighting - was completely ineffective to liberate Poland, or to protect Europe's Jews from what was to come.

World War II is actually a pretty bad example on the basis of which to challenge pacifism. It's an example that you can rely on only if you take it for granted that killing people is justified even if it's not effective to acheive the objective which you appeal to to justify it.

antiskeptic

Peregrinus wrote: »

Well, worth pointing that what was actually done - fighting - was completely ineffective to liberate Poland, or to protect Europe's Jews from what was to come.

I wouldn't have thought the liberation of Poland the core reason for the commencement of fighting. Rather, the invasion of Poland was the point at which it was decided that the time had come to resist the advance of something which would, if left unchecked, ultimately threaten ones own existance.

World War II is actually a pretty bad example on the basis of which to challenge pacifism. It's an example that you can rely on only if you take it for granted that killing people is justified even if it's not effective to acheive the objective which you appeal to to justify it.

So what alternative, non-military strategy would you have taken to the spreading of National Socialism?

flc37ie6ojwkh8

Most of the inventions we have nowadays come the 2 world wars. So it is sad to say, but nothing is always 100% bad.

antiskeptic

Dahlia Harsh Surf wrote: »

Most of the inventions we have nowadays come the 2 world wars. So it is sad to say, but nothing is always 100% bad.

If only poor old planet earth could cope with our advancement.

flc37ie6ojwkh8

That's a different issue which should be addressed ASAP.

Peregrinus

Couple of thoughts:

First, "stop the spread of national socialism" was not the British war aim in 1939 (or indeed at any point). I'm sceptical that we can justify recourse to violence by pointing to historical instances in which violence did have a happy outcome that wasn't the one intended at the time.

Secondly, even if you can justify violence by pointing to a happy outcome, surely an honest appraisal has to take account also of the unhappy outcomes? And of the outcomes that were sought and not acheived? When we think about the Nazis and why they are our touchstone for unparalleled evil, we think about the Holocaust. And the undeniable fact is that the Holocaust was carried through to completion; the whole thing was being wound down by the time the Nazis were defeated. Literally tens of millions of people died in the fight against the Nazis and yet the Holocaust was not stopped. Poland wasn't even liberated. Which, if anything, points to the futility of violence.

Which is why I'm impatient with the question "what would you have done on 3 September 1939". Isn't it obvious that, if you pick that date, you've picked a date when it's already too late? No matter what you do, millions will die horribly. You should be asking, I think, what should have been done differently, earlier, so that that wasn't the position on 3 September 1939. And part of that will be asking yourself whether a culture that justifies and even glorifies violence isn't part of the problem; part of the reason why, by 3 September 1919, we were where we were.

smacl

Dahlia Harsh Surf wrote: »

Most of the inventions we have nowadays come the 2 world wars. So it is sad to say, but nothing is always 100% bad.

Including of course nuclear armament which rather complicates the idea of any good coming from a global conflict ever again. I don't see enough positive outcome from any of the smaller wars post WWII to justify the attendant atrocities, e.g. Korea, Vietnam, Gulf, Falklands, Balkans, Afghanistan etc... So I'll also plump for the absolutely nothing line.

As for Churchill, I wouldn't say he won the war so much as the Axis side lost it. Russia does get a bit nippy in the Winter, and mounting attacks from a small island nation is never going to work once the other side starts dropping nuclear bombs. Worth reading a bit of what Kitchener had to say about Churchill in his younger years, I gather he was considered a bit of a liability.

Nick Park

Peregrinus wrote: »

Couple of thoughts:

First, "stop the spread of national socialism" was not the British war aim in 1939 (or indeed at any point). I'm sceptical that we can justify recourse to violence by pointing to historical instances in which violence did have a happy outcome that wasn't the one intended at the time.

Secondly, even if you can justify violence by pointing to a happy outcome, surely an honest appraisal has to take account also of the unhappy outcomes? And of the outcomes that were sought and not acheived? When we think about the Nazis and why they are our touchstone for unparalleled evil, we think about the Holocaust. And the undeniable fact is that the Holocaust was carried through to completion; the whole thing was being wound down by the time the Nazis were defeated. Literally tens of millions of people died in the fight against the Nazis and yet the Holocaust was not stopped. Poland wasn't even liberated. Which, if anything, points to the futility of violence.

Which is why I'm impatient with the question "what would you have done on 3 September 1939". Isn't it obvious that, if you pick that date, you've picked a date when it's already too late? No matter what you do, millions will die horribly. You should be asking, I think, what should have been done differently, earlier, so that that wasn't the position on 3 September 1939. And part of that will be asking yourself whether a culture that justifies and even glorifies violence isn't part of the problem; part of the reason why, by 3 September 1919, we were where we were.

I think your last paragraph really hits the nail on the head.

The problem of Nazi Germany is often raised as an objection to pacifism. However, if Christians in Germany had followed the teachings of Christ and the Early Church as regards warfare then they would never have enabled Hitler and the Nazis to take power in the first place.

antiskeptic

Peregrinus wrote: »

First, "stop the spread of national socialism" was not the British war aim in 1939 (or indeed at any point).

By "spread", I didn't mean that there was an (primary) objection to the political system. I meant, and indicated, the halting of a force which threatened to overcome oneself, ultimately.

You could take yourself out of Churchill's shoes and put yourself in the shoes of any of the leaders of the countries who were overrun.

What ought they have done in face of the perceived threat to own existence.

Secondly, even if you can justify violence by pointing to a happy outcome, surely an honest appraisal has to take account also of the unhappy outcomes? And of the outcomes that were sought and not acheived? When we think about the Nazis and why they are our touchstone for unparalleled evil, we think about the Holocaust. And the undeniable fact is that the Holocaust was carried through to completion; the whole thing was being wound down by the time the Nazis were defeated. Literally tens of millions of people died in the fight against the Nazis and yet the Holocaust was not stopped. Poland wasn't even liberated. Which, if anything, points to the futility of violence.

Rather than micro-examine what is ultimately a complex issue, I'm looking for ideas regarding an alternative strategy.

The Nazi's are a fitting touchstone because of many indications of the lengths they would go to to achieve ends. It wasn't just the Holocaust, it was indiscriminate bombing of civilians, the ability to sub-humanize whoever needed to be sub-humanized in order to justify objectives. It was the undoubted willingness of Hitler to utilize the atomic bomb once it had it been developed by the Germans.

How is one to oppose whatever militarily-supported objectives the Nazi's might have decided upon, if not militarily?

Which is why I'm impatient with the question "what would you have done on 3 September 1939". Isn't it obvious that, if you pick that date, you've picked a date when it's already too late? No matter what you do, millions will die horribly. You should be asking, I think, what should have been done differently, earlier, so that that wasn't the position on 3 September 1939. And part of that will be asking yourself whether a culture that justifies and even glorifies violence isn't part of the problem; part of the reason why, by 3 September 1919, we were where we were.

The only other date to pick is the date before Adam ate the apple. Ever since then, the world has been at war.

I don't see point in would've, could've, should'ves. The Christian who is against war in all circumstances is holding the hand the world's history, up to this point, has dealt him. Sure, others before him could have done differently and if so, things might not be as they are now, but it is as it is now and the Christian now has to decide what his position is going to be on the basis of the current situation

So, Hitler is out of the blocks, the Reich is expanding violently and shows no sign of stopping. Existential threat. What do you do?

antiskeptic

Nick Park wrote: »

The problem of Nazi Germany is often raised as an objection to pacifism. However, if Christians in Germany had followed the teachings of Christ and the Early Church as regards warfare then they would never have enabled Hitler and the Nazis to take power in the first place.

Would've, could've, should've .. but didn't.

Hitler is in power, is expanding the Reich using vicious force. You're next.

What do you do and why?

Nick Park

antiskeptic wrote: »

Would've, could've, should've .. but didn't.

Hitler is in power, is expanding the Reich using vicious force. You're next.

What do you do and why?

Impossible to say what I would do. But I hope I would have the courage to remain true to my convictions and my understanding of what Christ asks of me, and not to kill another human being.

flc37ie6ojwkh8

Nick Park wrote: »

I think your last paragraph really hits the nail on the head.

The problem of Nazi Germany is often raised as an objection to pacifism. However, if Christians in Germany had followed the teachings of Christ and the Early Church as regards warfare then they would never have enabled Hitler and the Nazis to take power in the first place.

They were something called "positive christians" rejecting the idea of Jews being the chosen people. They even censored the bible to remove any traces of jews. I think what we should question is, why so much hate?

muppetshow1451

Dahlia Harsh Surf wrote: »

Most of the inventions we have nowadays come the 2 world wars. So it is sad to say, but nothing is always 100% bad.

Nuclear holocaust is bad

antiskeptic

Nick Park wrote: »

Impossible to say what I would do. But I hope I would have the courage to remain true to my convictions and my understanding of what Christ asks of me, and not to kill another human being.

I was just looking up Matthew 19:18

NIV “Which ones?” he inquired. Jesus replied, “‘You shall not murder, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not steal, you shall not give false testimony,


The vast majority of English translations of this verse utilize the word murder, rather than kill.

is it clear cut that Jesus forbade killing under any circumstances?

Nick Park

antiskeptic wrote: »

I was just looking up Matthew 19:18

NIV “Which ones?” he inquired. Jesus replied, “‘You shall not murder, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not steal, you shall not give false testimony,


The vast majority of English translations of this verse utilize the word murder, rather than kill.

is it clear cut that Jesus forbade killing under any circumstances?

That depends on whether you want to be guided by a single proof text or by looking at the overall New Testament message. There are dozens of New Testament verses that lead me to conclude that pacifism is required of me as a follower of Christ.

Thought experiments about if I was Winston Churchill are pointless, since I wouldn't be in Winston's position unless I had lived his enthusiastic warmongering past. Neither could I ever subscribe to nationalism or patriotism - which were the fundamental false idols that underpinned his position.

Peregrinus

antiskeptic wrote: »

Rather than micro-examine what is ultimately a complex issue, I'm looking for ideas regarding an alternative strategy.

I've already told you; the alternative strategy is not to be in that position on 3 September 1939. And, certainly, not to accept as a given that we have to be in that position on 3 September 1939.

antiskeptic wrote: »

The Nazi's are a fitting touchstone because of many indications of the lengths they would go to to achieve ends. It wasn't just the Holocaust, it was indiscriminate bombing of civilians, the ability to sub-humanize whoever needed to be sub-humanized in order to justify objectives. It was the undoubted willingness of Hitler to utilize the atomic bomb once it had it been developed by the Germans.

None of those things are unique to the Nazis, though. In fact all of them, at one time or another, can be ascribed to the Nazis' opponents. You're essentially arguing that violence against Hitler was justified because, e.g., if he had developed the atom bomb he would have used it. But those who perpetrated violence against Hitler did in fact develop the atom bomb, and did in fact use it. Moreover, they used it to bomb citizens indiscriminately. Which kind of undermines the idea that the violence was justified on the basis of preventing these things.

antiskeptic wrote: »

So, Hitler is out of the blocks, the Reich is expanding violently and shows no sign of stopping. Existential threat. What do you do?

If it will help to move the discussion on, I'm happy to accept that, on 3 September 1939, as history actually unfolded, you may feel that the least worst choice is to fight. Or, that if you don't fight then you will have to fight pretty soon.

My point is that this does not justify recourse to violence. For the reasons already pointed out, while you may have no choice but to fight, fighting will nevertheless achieve very little, and in many respects may make things a great deal worse. And therefore I still maintain that the question worth asking here is "How did we get here? And how do we change things so we don't end up here again?" And, for a Christian, that has to involve hard questions about the idolatrous faith that we place in power, in force, in violence to bring salvation. As long as we cling to that faith, 3 September 1939 will keep coming around.

SuperSean11

Peregrinus wrote: »

Well, worth pointing that what was actually done - fighting - was completely ineffective to liberate Poland, or to protect Europe's Jews from what was to come.

World War II is actually a pretty bad example on the basis of which to challenge pacifism. It's an example that you can rely on only if you take it for granted that killing people is justified even if it's not effective to acheive the objective which you appeal to to justify it.

Is there anything to be said for another mass would have stopped the killing?

Peregrinus

SuperSean11 wrote: »

Is there anything to be said for another mass would have stopped the killing?

Not a lot. But, if "stopping the killing" is your objective, "another mass" could hardly have been less effective than what was actually done, which was followed by more than 50 million deaths.

Peregrinus

antiskeptic wrote: »

You're Winston Churchill in 1939. Poland has just been invaded..

What do you do?

antiskeptic wrote: »

I said Churchill, not Chamberlain

Well, what Churchill did in that circumstance was to accept appointment as First Lord of the Admiralty.

As Nick is unlikely to have been offered that posting, the question of whether he would have accepted it seems moot.

Manach

For a serious study of the pros and cons of War, there is Ian Morris' book of the same name. For the specific question, then the honouring of Treaty obligations would be paramount so as to preserve the status of the country as a good actor. As per writers like Nigel Biggar, some wars are justified when facing an aggressive state.

antiskeptic

Nick Park wrote: »

That depends on whether you want to be guided by a single proof text or by looking at the overall New Testament message. There are dozens of New Testament verses that lead me to conclude that pacifism is required of me as a follower of Christ.

I'm not arguing that we are urged to pacifism. We know which direction the flesh works towards and we know that we are urged to put to death the desires of the flesh. Killing others certainly falls within this territory.

But there is a category difference between the exhortation towards own flesh-denying and killing others in self-defence. Self-defence isn't motivated by the flesh, working to stay alive isn't unrighteous

What do you make of this?

Romans 13:3-4 "For rulers are not a cause of fear for good behavior, but for evil. Do you want to have no fear of authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same; for it is a minister of God to you for good. But if you do what is evil, be afraid; for it does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath upon the one who practices evil."


The person working for the above government is acting not so much as an individual as one under authority. And God appears to have instituted authorities that utilize, if necessary, the sword.

Are we really to suppose God's intent was that evil have a free reign? That there ought be no police force. That in the face of the likes of evil at work, society as a whole ought all turn the other cheek?

Can you appreciate the difference between these motivations: own flesh-suppression/control is quite a different matter to maintaining a functioning society.

Thought experiments about if I was Winston Churchill are pointless, since I wouldn't be in Winston's position unless I had lived his enthusiastic warmongering past. Neither could I ever subscribe to nationalism or patriotism - which were the fundamental false idols that underpinned his position.

The point wasn't so much that you be Winston Churchill. The point was what would you do faced with a Hitler-now-at-the-doorstep.

Nick Park

antiskeptic wrote: »

What do you make of this?

Romans 13:3-4 "For rulers are not a cause of fear for good behavior, but for evil. Do you want to have no fear of authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same; for it is a minister of God to you for good. But if you do what is evil, be afraid; for it does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath upon the one who practices evil."

I make of it that governments have functions. Two of which are to protect the life and liberties of the people and also to administer justice.

The person working for the above government is acting not so much as an individual as one under authority. And God appears to have instituted authorities that utilize, if necessary, the sword.

I disagree. The passage you just cited is written to Christians living under government. It does not exhort them to be the government, or to work for the government in a capacity that involves violence.

Are we really to suppose God's intent was that evil have a free reign? That there ought be no police force. That in the face of the likes of evil at work, society as a whole ought all turn the other cheek?

No. But neither are we to suppose that Christians were to be society as a whole. The idea that they could be is one of the inherent flaws in the concept of Christendom.

The point wasn't so much that you be Winston Churchill. The point was what would you do faced with a Hitler-now-at-the-doorstep.

I'd leave it to Churchill.

I would also refuse to participate in lethal violence.

antiskeptic

Nick Park wrote: »

I make of it that governments have functions. Two of which are to protect the life and liberties of the people and also to administer justice.

It also says it is a minister of God for you, for good. By the sword.

Of God, by the sword.

I disagree. The passage you just cited is written to Christians living under government. It does not exhort them to be the government, or to work for the government in a capacity that involves violence.

But if government a God-instituted organ for the good of mankind, then what possible problem serving it in a sword capacity.

Are you suggesting it God-instituted, but that the "dirty work" be left to non-Christians?

No. But neither are we to suppose that Christians were to be society as a whole. The idea that they could be is one of the inherent flaws in the concept of Christendom.

So it is okay with God that there be police forces and resistance to the free reign of evil, necessarily by the sword at times. But that Christians ought not be involved in that God-instituted work.

I'D remind you of the distinction that exists between flesh-denying pacifism and serving a God-instituted organ. Of course, you could decide the organ corrupt (such as the Nazi organ)and not serve for that reason. But there are times when you would recognis evil at work and the opposition to it righteous. Or righteous enough on balance.

I'd leave it to Churchill.

I would also refuse to participate in lethal violence.

Hopefully you'll have clarified your position above. Whether or not government resisting evil is a God-instituted notion and if so, how the Christian is to stand outside what God figures necessary to do in the face of evil.

I'm not supposing that this is the ideal position from God's perspective. Rather, it's a case of necessity. Evil, if left run unrestrained would result in utter destruction of society.

antiskeptic

Peregrinus wrote: »

I've already told you; the alternative strategy is not to be in that position on 3 September 1939. And, certainly, not to accept as a given that we have to be in that position on 3 September 1939.

And I've already pointed out that the only date which works for this thinking is the day before Adam ate the apple. Of course, alternative events might have prevented the position of Sept 1939. Alternative events might have resulted in the Cold War resulting in nuclear war. Since we cannot suppose alternative events would forever avoid the circumstances in which war is the next step, we must suppose arriving at that place.

At which point the question being posed to you: what do you do (whether as an individual chosing to join up or a statesman choosing to declare war)

None of those things are unique to the Nazis, though. In fact all of them, at one time or another, can be ascribed to the Nazis' opponents. You're essentially arguing that violence against Hitler was justified because, e.g., if he had developed the atom bomb he would have used it. But those who perpetrated violence against Hitler did in fact develop the atom bomb, and did in fact use it. Moreover, they used it to bomb citizens indiscriminately. Which kind of undermines the idea that the violence was justified on the basis of preventing these things.

The issue in question, killing another, is encompassed here. The justification isn't to prevent all killing. The justification is preventing you and others being killed by an aggressor.

Someone is heading in your direction with the aim of killing you. It would appear the pacifist-in-all-circumstances view would refuse to engage in self-defence.

Is there is an alternative strategy, given the situation is at had and wasn't avoided

If it will help to move the discussion on, I'm happy to accept that, on 3 September 1939, as history actually unfolded, you may feel that the least worst choice is to fight. Or, that if you don't fight then you will have to fight pretty soon.

It would indeed help.

My point is that this does not justify recourse to violence. For the reasons already pointed out, while you may have no choice but to fight, fighting will nevertheless achieve very little, and in many respects may make things a great deal worse.

You have a choice whether to fight or not. I don't see how anyone could know whether their deciding to fight could make it "worse", since it can't be known what would happen in the event you didn't fight. Yes, many were killed by the choice to fight Hitler, but no one can know how many would have been killed if that choice hadn't been made.

And therefore I still maintain that the question worth asking here is "How did we get here?

I don't see the relevance warranting a therefore: the situation being used for the purposes of this discussion has already landed at your door. Asking how you got here isn't going to alter the fact that you are here. With a pressing decision to make: fight or no.

And how do we change things so we don't end up here again?" And, for a Christian, that has to involve hard questions about the idolatrous faith that we place in power, in force, in violence to bring salvation. As long as we cling to that faith, 3 September 1939 will keep coming around.

That question can be asked too. But it doesn't alter the need to decide what to do now. Fine if a way can be found for this war to be the end of all wars, but it won't help decide this one.

I posted to Nick above on the difference between flesh-denying pacifism and the apparent establishment of government systems by God, for the obvious reasons he would have done so.

I'm having trouble understanding why a Christian, who knows the world is fallen, could contemplate ever achieving a scenario where war could always be avoided. The world will always love power. The world will always be violent. The world won't ever be full of Christians running the show such as to fundamentally alter these characteristics.

They must make their decision in light of the reality: war will come. What am I to do in the face of evil when it advances to my doorstep? It doesn't matter whether the device used to discuss is Churchill/Hitler, police force / armed robber, you and the mugger holding a knife to your childs throat. Kill or be killed by evil: that is the question.

koumi

"for our struggle is not against flesh and blood" Ephesians 6:12

Nick Park

antiskeptic wrote: »

It also says it is a minister of God for you, for good. By the sword.

Of God, by the sword.

That's quite true. Government has a function. The church has a very different function.

I believe that, as a Christian, I am to have no part in violence. That means not participating in the military, and not voting for or enabling acts of war. It also means voting for governance that promotes peace and preserves life.

I am well aware that sometimes governments will behave very differently from how the Church of christ should behave.

But if government a God-instituted organ for the good of mankind, then what possible problem serving it in a sword capacity.

Disobedience to the teaching and example of Christ.

Are you suggesting it God-instituted, but that the "dirty work" be left to non-Christians?

Government is God instituted. That doesn't mean that everything governments do is God-instituted or approved.

I would prefer that the government did not do "dirty work" - but ultimately the Church should operate as a counter-cultural minority speaking prophetically as a conscience from the margins of society.

So it is okay with God that there be police forces and resistance to the free reign of evil, necessarily by the sword at times. But that Christians ought not be involved in that God-instituted work.

If they can be part of the police without engaging in lethal violence, then of course Christians can be involved.

I'D remind you of the distinction that exists between flesh-denying pacifism and serving a God-instituted organ. Of course, you could decide the organ corrupt (such as the Nazi organ)and not serve for that reason. But there are times when you would recognis evil at work and the opposition to it righteous. Or righteous enough on balance.

I would see a difference between opposition and violence. Non-violent resistance is always an option.

For example, early Christians were persecuted by the Roman Empire. They did not form a partisan army to fight back. And I believe they were correct.

antiskeptic

koumi wrote: »

"for our struggle is not against flesh and blood" Ephesians 6:12

Not primarily. But he who we struggle against primarily works out through flesh and blood. Question is, what is to be done.

antiskeptic

Nick Park wrote: »

That's quite true. Government has a function. The church has a very different function.

I believe that, as a Christian, I am to have no part in violence. That means not participating in the military, and not voting for or enabling acts of war. It also means voting for governance that promotes peace and preserves life.

I am well aware that sometimes governments will behave very differently from how the Church of christ should behave.

In instituting government, God included the sword in it's armory. God saw fit to have government and saw fit that it would wield the sword at times.

All you say above doesn't deal with this element.

Disobedience to the teaching and example of Christ.

Could you comment on the suggestion that his urging us towards pacifism focuses on suppressing the sinful flesh, rather than suppressing our need for self-defence?

Government is God instituted. That doesn't mean that everything governments do is God-instituted or approved.

True, yet the sword lies within the armory of a government, and the verse indicates that it's being wielded can be a proper and appropriate act of government.

It is for you to decide whether or not the government is acting rightfully (or rightfully enough, on balance). If yes, then you can be that sword - since the sword-wielding government (and it's agents) is God-instituted. If not, not.

But you can't totally disassociate yourself from the responsibility of government, given instances where the sword wielding is appropriate.

I would prefer that the government did not do "dirty work" - but ultimately the Church should operate as a counter-cultural minority speaking prophetically as a conscience from the margins of society.

The question isn't what you prefer, the question is whether or not Governments action, including wielding the sword at times, can fall within God's remit in his instituting them.

If so, and you figure not to partake when evil is abroad then you are letting others do your dirty work - since it is dirty work God supposed needing doing when he instituted sword wielding government. If not, then not.

Counter cultural applies when you decide not to join in the fray when your nation is on the aggression-fueled warpath. Defending oneself and others against those who would want, being driven by evil motivations, to kill you isn't culturally driven. You have every right to survive.



So:

- God institution of sword wielding government, instituting thus, the potential for violent opposition to evil.

- pacifism confined to the suppression of own sinful flesh, not necessarily a total prohibition against violence.