Lori, you're saying ......

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-27-2003
Lori, you're saying ......
32
Thu, 03-27-2003 - 12:18am
... you could never support a war?

Sorry, I was confused which part of kennow's post you were responding to.

I came across this article on a Christian site. It's not LDS, but I can look at different bible translations on this site so have visited it often, sometimes reading it's "Bible Answers" and finding explanations and citations to back them up that I agree with.

Anyway, I noticed this page on their site today and thought you might be interested in reading it:

http://www.bible.com/terrorism.html



Pages

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-27-2003
Thu, 03-27-2003 - 1:02am
Um, sorry I'm not really replying to this message, I just wanted to try on the new format.
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Thu, 03-27-2003 - 2:49am
Can't speak for Lori, but Bible.com does NOT speak for the UMC, of which I am a member. The UMC has very different ideas about the appropriate responses to violence--all of which fall in line with Christ's teachings--none of which approve of violence towards others. I agree with the UMC stand. Doesn't mean I'm not occasionally tempted, but it also doesn't make it right...or righteous.
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-27-2003
Thu, 03-27-2003 - 11:38am
none of which approve of violence towards others

Are you saying that in the UMC and your view that war never can and never will be justified under any circumstances?

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-27-2003
Thu, 03-27-2003 - 7:21pm
Leslie, I'll try to get to you tomorrow. Had a virus today and spent too much of the day sitting on my throne :O(
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-27-2003
Thu, 03-27-2003 - 9:22pm
De-lurking to add another LDS perspective to the war debate that I received via email. :-) Jennifer

(snip)

A war of aggression, meaning taking the offense instead of defense,

may lose us the blessings of Heaven. The natural reaction to this

statement would be to underscore the dangers of allowing a fanatical

regime to develop threatening weapons. I am sure this was also the

justification of the Nephites during the last wars with the

Lamanites. At one point, the Nephites invaded the Lamanite territory.

One can understand the fear that would precipitate this action. The

Lamanites were continuing to prepare for further invasion. If this

could be forestalled by attacking and taking away their ability to

make war, then Nephite lives could theoretically be saved.

Mormon 4:4, "And it was because the armies of the Nephites went up

unto the Lamanites that they began to be smitten; for were it not for

that, the Lamanites could have had no power over them." Mormon

refused to lead the people in their aggressive retaliation.

Some people contend that a battle with terrorism is a completely new

kind of war and we are therefore justified in making an offensive

attack. As Hugh Nibley is so fond of saying, "There is nothing new

under the sun." The Nephites had to deal with terrorists

called "Gadianton Robbers." They also wanted to attack the

terrorists. "Now the people said unto Gidgiddoni: Pray unto the Lord

and let us go up upon the mountains and into the wilderness, that we

may fall upon the robbers and destroy them in their own lands. But

Gidgiddoni saith unto them: The Lord forbid; for if we should go up

against them the Lord would deliver us into their hands; therefore we

will prepare ourselves in the center of our lands, and we will gather

all our armies together, and we will not go against them but we will

wait till they shall come against us; therefore as the Lord liveth,

if we do this he will deliver them into our hands." 3 Nephi 3:20-21.

A war of aggression against Iraq cannot be logically defended due to

weapons threat unless we also believe we should have attacked the old

USSR, China, Cuba, Northern Korea and many other countries. Neal A.

Maxwell said shortly before the first Gulf War, that we shouldn't

fight over a strip of sand. He didn't directly mention Iraq but it

seems that was most likely his intention.

We shouldn't be alarmed to find events funneling the world toward a

fulfillment of prophecy. Why should we fear when we see prophecy

being fulfilled? This doesn't mean we shouldn't try our best to use

peaceful means to positively influence our government toward policies

we feel to be right. Supporting the president doesn't mean we give up

our own powers of reason or close our eyes to the consequences of our

current actions. I personally have decided to interpret supporting

the president and troops as follows: I will pray for them, I will not

protest the war in a negative, hateful way or demand that the war be

stopped prematurely. I will pray and hope for a quick and decisive

victory with as few casualties as possible. Strangely enough, I find

myself supporting the war emotionally, but intellectually, I feel we

have made the wrong move politically, socially, and spiritually.

Patricia C.

Nevada

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Fri, 03-28-2003 - 3:07am
Which word didn't you understand?
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-27-2003
Fri, 03-28-2003 - 6:58am
I don't think I would/could support any war. It keeps coming back to my mind that in this war it seems to be *us*, America, against *them*, Iraq. Well what is America AND Iraq but people. Therefore it's American people against Iraqi people. Are we ALL not people/children of God? If we are the agressors of this war, being us, in the name of keeping *us* safe, are we not putting *us* as more important than *them*? Is that not sort of idolatry? We are putting America, in our democracy, and all of our freedoms, and all of our beliefs, and all of our wants and desires and priority, and our safety, above, as more important, than children of God that happen to live somewhere else? Does not God make the sun shine of the righteous AND the unrighteous, does He not make it rain on the good and the evil? So if *we* are attacking and killing *them* to keep *us* safe, we are thinking of ourselves as better than *them* - just smacks of idolatry. Our country and the people in it and our safety is more important than the people of Iraq.

The Bible does say that there will war and famine and death, etc., but does that mean that we should not attempt to stop it? Jesus also says that their will always be poor. Does that mean that we should not attempt to take care of them and feed them? There will always be evil (in the world that we know now), and death, and destruction, and violence, and starvation, and war, but does not and should not mankind do everything in their power to stop these things? They will always be so just let them be! Of course not!

America has become an Empire, and the empire of America is threatened, so the empire of America has become the aggressor. In the Bible Jesus does not support an empire, any empire at all, but He preaches and teaches the Kingdom of god. And it is indisputable that Jesus taught and lived a life of nonviolence. Are we not as Christians taught to teach about the Kingdom of God, not am empire? There is a difference between patriotism and nationalism and in the name of defending *us* America has become an empire of violence teaching by the example of violence rather than by the example of love through the Kingdom of God. The Bible clearly states to Love Your Enemy. By attacking Iraq, the Iraqi regime, and killing people en mass, are we loving our enemy? Or are we just keeping America safe??

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-27-2003
Fri, 03-28-2003 - 7:20am
Go Lori, go Lori! nt
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-27-2003
Fri, 03-28-2003 - 9:48am
Wars from each century since our founding include:

- American Revolution: Gave us the freedoms we enjoy today

- Civil War: Freed African slaves in the U.S.

- World War II: What a mess! Liberated the countries under Nazi grip and stopped the annhilatin of the Jews (and lots of other stuff)

Without war, the world would have been a very different place.

And, quite possibly the world will be anyway if nuclear, biological, and chemical warfare gets into someone's hands and it's used again and on more people before they are stopped. The NBC weapons have not been used on the U.S. yet and they are more likely to be used on Iraq's neighbors and their own citizens than us, so I don't think the U.S. is doing this for our own interests only.

You think the world will not be a better place if their NBC weapons are destroyed? Seriously, do you think it's possible for SH's regime to remain in place *and* for there to be peace and security?

How would one show *love* to the regime, as you suggested? Do you think there was something that this administration could have done in the past 2 years that would have changed the course of what SH would do?

If Nazi Germany happened all over again, what do you think would be the solution to that in lieu of a military solution?

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-27-2003
Fri, 03-28-2003 - 10:13am
My question was:

Are you saying that in the UMC and your view that war never can and never will be justified under any circumstances?

I didn't (and don't) understand how this absolute could be true. What would have been the solution to freeing slaves or stopping the mass extermination of the Jews?

Pages