NationStates Jolt Archive

Well, let me start out by saying that I am a fundamentalist Christian, conservative, and voted for Bush in the last election.

However, one thing that's been bugging me, as I am a fundamentalist Christian: why is it that war is even considered a resort to those who wish to follow Christian doctrine? Especially those in American politics (i.e. Bush). I love the guy, but I don't see how we can support military action as an option if Christ Himself had the stance of "turn the other cheek" and "love thy enemy".

I'm not intending to propose any anti-Bush doctrine, nor am I wanting to become a flamebaiter. I'm actually trying to see how we can justify a war as Christians. I want to be sure I know whats going on and what scripture states before I ground myself on either side of the stance.

Thanks to anyone who can help me out here.

"Turn the other cheek" is an unworkable policy in the real world. The satanists have it right. If someone slaps your cheek, smash them on theirs. The only way to keep from being a victim is to be able and willing to utterly destroy those who would attack you.

Well, let me start out by saying that I am a fundamentalist Christian, conservative, and voted for Bush in the last election.

However, one thing that's been bugging me, as I am a fundamentalist Christian: why is it that war is even considered a resort to those who wish to follow Christian doctrine? Especially those in American politics (i.e. Bush). I love the guy, but I don't see how we can support military action as an option if Christ Himself had the stance of "turn the other cheek" and "love thy enemy".

I'm not intending to propose any anti-Bush doctrine, nor am I wanting to become a flamebaiter. I'm actually trying to see how we can justify a war as Christians. I want to be sure I know whats going on and what scripture states before I ground myself on either side of the stance.

Thanks to anyone who can help me out here.

It's hard to answer, because there are a lot of different Christians and different Christian doctrines on war.

However.

Historically, Christians have been at war. Especially in wars that they believed to be a threat to the existence of the Church, or their way of life, or both. Also, they liked pillaging as much as the other guy, so there's also that.

Today, I would personally regard permanent, unreconciled instability in the Middle East as a potentially civilization-ending problem.

Given that few of the nations in that area negotiate anything in good faith, largely due to distrust of former agreements (which screwed them good) written by Europeans, and the former screwing by those very same Europeans (who also drew lines on the map and said, "this part is yours" and, "this part goes to your cousins, whom we shall set against you"), one might ask how we go about making changes.

And how long we expect to take - if the risk grows by the day that something really stupid will eventually come out of that region, how long are we willing to wait?

Add to that the European handwringers who have been saying for decades (after screwing the region good), "when will the Americans ever do something about the problem in the Middle East?"

Well, for starters, places like Israel weren't set up by the Americans. Sure, we helped them later, but it was a British idea. Thanks, guys!

And other places in the Middle East were also drawn up by the British, who set up the rulers.

Then the Cold War came. And here the US can take its share of the blame, for playing games with these countries along with the Soviet Union (hey, it's fun to replace one dictator with another).

Iranians in particular grew weary of this. No wonder they are pissed off.

But, as ever, the Europeans keep wringing their hands, expecting us to do something about it. After all, those new shiny ICBMs the Iranians have been testing (that can reach Europe) are coming on line now, and I'm sure that it doesn't give the average European a warm fuzzy feeling.

It is my understanding that "turn the other cheek" was meant to apply to personal retaliations (that is how it is talked about in the Bible). It doesn't apply to full on military agression or criminal offenses. Of course, this is all one person's interpretation of that (and I will tell you right now that I am not a Chrisitian myself).

Essentially, there is a big difference between personal retaliation and vengenance, and it has always been my understanding that God is vengeful of those that would do wrong, but tells his followers not to retaliate against personal slights.

Thus, avenging a terrorist attack could be viewed as acceptable, whereas punching some jerk in a bar because he just did the same to you would not be.

At any rate, that's my take.

It's hard to answer, because there are a lot of different Christians and different Christian doctrines on war.
And before I read any further: therein lies your "fundamental problem".

Did Jesus envisage so many of those who would spread his word would come to spread it so differently, so vaguely, and so callously.

I don't believe one can truly be a fundamentalist Christian. The basis of Christian religions has simply become too tainted and diverse.

(I mean no offence by this.)

(For once.)

Well, let me start out by saying that I am a fundamentalist Christian, conservative, and voted for Bush in the last election.

However, one thing that's been bugging me, as I am a fundamentalist Christian: why is it that war is even considered a resort to those who wish to follow Christian doctrine? Especially those in American politics (i.e. Bush). I love the guy, but I don't see how we can support military action as an option if Christ Himself had the stance of "turn the other cheek" and "love thy enemy".

I'm not intending to propose any anti-Bush doctrine, nor am I wanting to become a flamebaiter. I'm actually trying to see how we can justify a war as Christians. I want to be sure I know whats going on and what scripture states before I ground myself on either side of the stance.

Thanks to anyone who can help me out here.


You can't. You shouldn't have voted for Bush. Bush is not a true Christian. He believes in greed wrath and cruelty.

He claimed that Texas had no problem with capital punishment even if many other states with capital punishment were starting to realize that the punishment was being dished out wrong. Yet he did nothing to check it out. As a Christian the death penalty is inexcusable, yet he won't even question it and then jokes about the people he's putting to death. He really enjoys his power to hurt and kill without putting himself at risk. He is an evil person and the absolute antithesis of all things Christian.

He lied (bore false witness) countless times in defense of his war. He sins in the name of sin (lying for the sake of killing).

When Kerry suggested a means by which the government could help the thousands of people who can't afford medical care for their children Bush's response was "how's he gonna pay for it?" Yet he's wasted $200,000,000,000 on his campaign of murder and torture. So killing people half way around the world is worth any amount of money, but saving lives here isn't worth a dime?

To all the deluded would-be Christians who voted for Bush, in the words of Jerry Falwell "I point my finger in their faces and say you helped this happen."

You soiled our bed now we all have to lie in it.

It is my understanding that "turn the other cheek" was meant to apply to personal retaliations (that is how it is talked about in the Bible). It doesn't apply to full on military agression or criminal offenses. Of course, this is all one person's interpretation of that (and I will tell you right now that I am not a Chrisitian myself).


Well this has been Pat Robertson's interpretation.
Christ believed that every single person should be a pacifist. But whole big bunches of people can be violent warmongering psychos and Christ will smile on them.

Well this has been Pat Robertson's interpretation.
Christ believed that every single person should be a pacifist. But whole big bunches of people can be violent warmongering psychos and Christ will smile on them.

Lol - I'm not sure that Christ would actually smile on the warmongering psychopaths...and like I was saying, I think Christ/God would have a huge problem with people who are commiting massive acts of military aggression against other nations. On the other hand, I think there's some room for the interpretation that a nation should defend itself (although it's quite arguable that the United States has gone WAY beyond defending itself at this point).

First of all I'd like to say that although George Bush is a Christian he is also a statesman and needs to do what he feels is right for his country and its people. He would also point to quotes such as "eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth" and sorties such as the Isrealites Killing the Cannenites as Biblical justification for war.

Second, I feel that idea that it was British intervention in the Middle East that is the reason for current problems in the area is simple Stereo-typing. The Leauge of Nations voted unanimously to keep the area under Brish controle and to expand Brish power into Iraq after WWI. Then after WWII with the dispanding of the British empire in that area it was we AND the United States that agreed to put the Isrealies in Palestine.

I hope this has helped you in understanding George Bush as a states man more and Helped in enightening your misconseptions about us British.

Well, let me start out by saying that I am a fundamentalist Christian, conservative, and voted for Bush in the last election.

However, one thing that's been bugging me, as I am a fundamentalist Christian: why is it that war is even considered a resort to those who wish to follow Christian doctrine? Especially those in American politics (i.e. Bush). I love the guy, but I don't see how we can support military action as an option if Christ Himself had the stance of "turn the other cheek" and "love thy enemy".

I'm not intending to propose any anti-Bush doctrine, nor am I wanting to become a flamebaiter. I'm actually trying to see how we can justify a war as Christians. I want to be sure I know whats going on and what scripture states before I ground myself on either side of the stance.

Thanks to anyone who can help me out here.

Maybe you need to ask yourself, "What would Jesus do?" Would he sit back quietly and continue to support a government whose "war on terror" has killed somewhere between 20,000 and 100,000 people, perhaps more, that mouths regrets at "collateral damage" but who isn't even prepared to try to count the civilian casualties?

Would he ignore the mass starvation across the planet, the silent tsunami of 100,000 children who die each week from easily preventible diseases? Would he think the hundreds of billions of dollars, and all the blood and sweat and time poured into ousting one oil-rich tin-pot all-but-defenceless dictator were well spent? Or would he be able to think of other, better ways to make the world a happier, more peaceful and more secure place for everybody?

Jesus spent his time with the poor, the sick, the meek and the humble. How much time would he have to spare for George W Bush -- especially now that George is off the sauce?

Well this has been Pat Robertson's interpretation.
Christ believed that every single person should be a pacifist. But whole big bunches of people can be violent warmongering psychos and Christ will smile on them.

I would also like to ask that, since God supported holy wars in his name (Joshua's campaign, King David and his campaign, etc.), if the same could still be said for today. Now I know we can immediately state that this isn't the same kind of war, but is it possible that God can still support military action in His name?

As for capital punishment. I'm still a bit tied down on that one. On one hand the Old Testament laws instructed the death penalty for certain issues, however, "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." So that one is a toughie for me.

Turn the other cheak and you get two black eyes.

Well this has been Pat Robertson's interpretation.
Christ believed that every single person should be a pacifist. But whole big bunches of people can be violent warmongering psychos and Christ will smile on them.
That makes a lot of sense. A lot of NONsense that is.

If you like war just convert to Islam. Mohamed was a great warrior unlike that long haired, birkenstock wearing hippy Jesus. He conquered all of Arabia. He kicks ass.

Well, let me start out by saying that I am a fundamentalist Christian, conservative, and voted for Bush in the last election.

However, one thing that's been bugging me, as I am a fundamentalist Christian: why is it that war is even considered a resort to those who wish to follow Christian doctrine? Especially those in American politics (i.e. Bush). I love the guy, but I don't see how we can support military action as an option if Christ Himself had the stance of "turn the other cheek" and "love thy enemy".

I'm not intending to propose any anti-Bush doctrine, nor am I wanting to become a flamebaiter. I'm actually trying to see how we can justify a war as Christians. I want to be sure I know whats going on and what scripture states before I ground myself on either side of the stance.

Thanks to anyone who can help me out here.


I think that Jesus was talking that when it comes to things of the mortal realm, don't return evil for evil, instead when evil comes to you, treat it with good. Even Jesus struck people. I think making a whip and chasing people out of the temple was a sign of that, but it was driven by a divine zeal, that was even talked about by King David.

I'm not saying that war is right or wrong. There are ideals and emotions worth fighting for, and there are ones that aren't. Its all guided by heart and, in my opinion, faith.

I think that Jesus was talking that when it comes to things of the mortal realm, don't return evil for evil, instead when evil comes to you, treat it with good. Even Jesus struck people. I think making a whip and chasing people out of the temple was a sign of that, but it was driven by a divine zeal, that was even talked about by King David.

Wasn't that the part where they were holding business transactions in the temple?

"Turn the other cheek" is an unworkable policy in the real world. The satanists have it right. If someone slaps your cheek, smash them on theirs. The only way to keep from being a victim is to be able and willing to utterly destroy those who would attack you.

Yes. Correct. You don't get anywhere by being a victim.

As a Christian the death penalty is inexcusable,
Excuse me? Ever read Exodus, Leviticus or Deuteronomy.

Anyway, as to the Biblical imperative to "turn the other cheek": let's see what the Scripture actually says.

From Matthew 5:39, KJV:
"whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also."

Nine out of ten people are right-handed. A open-handed slap with the palm executed by a right-handed person against another person would land on their LEFT cheek. For a right-handed person to slap someone on the RIGHT cheek would require them to slap that person with the BACK of their hand.

A back-handed slap is not an assault. It's an insult. A challenge. Christ was not a pacific, and he did not teach pacifism. Judiasm is not a pacifistic religion, and neither is Christianity. Christ was teaching us in chapter 5 of the Gospel of Matthew not to rise to petty insults. He was not invalidating the right of self-defense and defense of property laid out in Exodus 22.

9/11 wasn't an insult. It was a cowardly terrorist attack on innocent people, and for the United States government to not take appropriate steps to protect her people would not have only been unwise, but immoral and unChristian.