To desertwanderer – in case you missed it, you are paid by the people of your country to go to war (this does not necessarily mean to 'defend your country'). Where did you get the idea that those same people should have no say about war then ? The 'internet' was brought about by some of your own was it not (Al Gore & friends ?) and is a most useful tool for people to discuss those very issues that this blog is about – once 'moral' accountabilities in peace/war are introduced then politics is already in the door. Since even the military has 'moral' codes then already there is politics involved that drew up that moral code in the first place. Welcome to the web.

Mark S

The Hebrew Scriptures have plenty of evidence that He uses people and war to fight against evil.

When did Jesus get paid to be a teacher? I assume you don't expect Christians to have a profession they get a paid to do.

Brian, since when is being a teacher not a profession? What definition of 'profession' are we using? If one must be a doctor, lawyer, politician or professor in order to be a 'professional', then I have never taken up a 'profession' either. LOL

Still, I have professed my trust in God and His worthiness to receive that trust. I have offered emergency medical aid. I have been to court and addressed the court as well as being a member of the court to render a decision based upon evidence presented and the laws governing personal conduct. And I have taught on college campuses and in classrooms in several states.

Jesus was called the Great Physician.
Jesus confounded the teachers of the Law at age 12 and well past that age.
Jesus knew more about healing than any other doctor before and since His incarnation.
Jesus' teachings revealed more about life and living well than all the self-help and others-help books outside the inspired writ have ever taught – and His students turned the world upside down telling others about Him and His teaching.
And what Jesus taught about political matters is still viewed as the hallmark of good citizenship around the world in regimes as diverse as communism and democracy and totalitarianism.

The evidence that Jesus took up a profession is absolutely clear. And, when you think about it, even a cord of rushes is a weapon in some hands. The problem is not that Jesus did not know how to use anything that could be called a weapon, but that there is no conclusive evidence that He ever did actually use a physical weapon against any person. The point is not even about whether words can be weapons. The point is how did Jesus employ ANY weapon(s) that one might claim He had at His disposal? And THAT is where I beg to differ with those who claim not only the right to defend self or family or friends, or even strangers, but also the intent to do so under specific circumstances. As a follower of Jesus, when is it right to intend to harm another?

Blessings,

Glenn

"2. Dunagin in “How to Stop a War” states that over half the wars fought never resolve the issue or issues that caused the war. Why pick a method of response or action that has such a dismal success record?

Leonard, many times we can't even agree on why a war starts. Just look at your disagreement with Steve over the purpose of the current war in Iraq. The two of you can't even agree on what that war is taking place and it is contemporary.

To this day, historians cannot agree on the motivation and the purpose behind the civil war. Was it a battle over slavery? Was it a contest over states' rights? Was a battle over economic influence between the agriculture dependent south and the burgeoning industrial north?

Depending on the historian one chooses to believe, it is no wonder that one can so easily assert that half of all wars fail to meet their objective when agreement cannot even be reached regarding these objectives

Loenard further said:
"3. Chris Hedges in “What Every Person Should Know About War” writes that 75-90% of all the victims of wars since World War 2 have been innocent civilians."

Leonard,
One of my favorite jokes is that 99% of all statistics are made up and the other 1% are misleading. I have a few thoughts or perceptions on this statistic (I have not read the work cited).

First, as demonstrated by Steve's reply to you, there is vast disagreement over the number of civillian deaths in the current wars depending on the source of the numbers. And that is in a modern war where international media scrutiny is intense and focused on highlighting those civillian deaths. How much less reliable are statistics from previous wars with far less media attention and access?

I also wonder if the statistics leading to the percentage you cited include the 6 Million + jews executed in the Holocaust. I wonder if the statistics include all those who died of startvation and disease in the city streets and ghettoes of German occupied Holland, etc. It is easy to see why the percentage is so high considering the sheer volume of deaths caused by Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan. Many more deaths occurred because of the military strategy used by Hitler when he mercilessly bombed ciites like London. Were we to sit idly by while these attrocities took place because of Pacifist viewpoints? As misleading as I think the numbers you presented are, let us not forget that many of those civillian deaths were caused by others and would have occurred whether the United States ever entered a fight or not.

"Chief among them is this: when did Jesus take up a physical weapon to fight anyone? I cannot follow Him where He did not go."

Glenn, if that statement were taken to its extreme, one could also it is not appropriate for me to have a job because Jesus did not have one and I cannot follow him where he did not go.

There is just as much evidence for Jesus entering a profession as is there is for Jesus taking up a physical weapon.

Take care and thanks for your comment.

Sincerely;
Leonard Nolt

Thanks for your response and the information you provided. I'm not interested in antagonizing anyone so I won't give specific responses to the points you made except to say in response to your sentence that "if you want to discuss the moral implications of fighting evil such as that stated above, I welcome it," is that's what I thought we were doing.

I will write a few things however:

In my interactions with veterans, I find that those who have participated in and survived actual combat are often the ones least likely to speak well of war, and the most reluctant to approve of using war as a solution to problems this nation faces.

I would recommend reading the blog "Baghdad Burning" at http://riverbendblog.blogspot.com/ to get the perspective of the war from an Iraqi, which is certainly more credible than anything I write, since I've never been there.

Ten percent of the people of Iraq were Christians before the first US invasion during the administration of George H W Bush. Now that percentage is down to less that one or two percent, largely because of the invasion and occupation by a so-called Christian nation. The US attack has literally almost destroyed the church in Iraq.

If Jesus who was sinless, did not feel that he had the right to use violence to save himself from the cross or even postpone his crucifixation, than what right do his followers have to use violence? Postponing his execution, which he had the option of doing, could have had many benefits. He could have spent several more years preaching, healing the sick, feeding the hungry, raising the dead. He could have expanded and increase his number of followers and disciples to order to have a more solid foundation on which to built his church. He could have used his power to increase safety and protect people who were vulnerable to oppression from the occupying forces. He might have even had time to write a few of the books of the New Testament himself without having to rely on his disciples to do that work. Jesus had all the same reasons and justifications that we embrace today to justify using military violence against Iraq and Afghanistan, yet he refused to use violence. Why?
God bless you.

Sincerely;

Leonard Nolt

These are precisely the sort of arguments used to show that MLK Jr's non-violent resistance was foolish.

Every time a black person was abused, evil men were allowed to prevail and Christians and Christianity were despised. How many times was Dr. King called a fool, how many times was Jesus mocked by unbelievers in the racial equality movement, because Dr. King insisted on Gandhian (and Christian) non-violent resistance?

if nearly everyone refuses to defend their neighbors, Christians and Christianity will be despised.

That is precisely what happened in black communities across the South, and (comparatively) how do we judge those who responded violently with those who responded non-violently? Seems one side got a famous museum in Memphis… why is that if their duty was to defend their neighbor from Bull Connor, et al?