There are some encouraging signs Abailart, being that there is a ferment and self-criticism within a stream of evangelical Christianity. But WWJD first became famous over a hundred years go in a best-seller written in 1897 by Charles Sheldon called "In His Steps: "What would Jesus Do?" It's a good question, an important question. And our answer to that question depends upon what we think Jesus was like. If one believes Jesus tells us about the importance of believing in him so that we can be with him forever, then that will be the focus. If one believes in the Jesus who will soon come again to judge the world, then people will focus on trying to convert people to believing in him. If on...

There are some encouraging signs Abailart, being that there is a ferment and self-criticism within a stream of evangelical Christianity. But WWJD first became famous over a hundred years go in a best-seller written in 1897 by Charles Sheldon called "In His Steps: "What would Jesus Do?" It's a good question, an important question. And our answer to that question depends upon what we think Jesus was like. If one believes Jesus tells us about the importance of believing in him so that we can be with him forever, then that will be the focus. If one believes in the Jesus who will soon come again to judge the world, then people will focus on trying to convert people to believing in him. If one believes in the Jesus who teaches a rigorous personal morality, then I suspect the answer would be following a code of moral purity, much of it to do with sex.
So WWJD? I think he would teach the wrongness and futility of violence in human affairs, and be passionate about compassion and justice as the primary virtues of a life centered in the God he knew. And what would happen if all Christians focused on that example of Christ?

I would like to point out that in Luke 22:36 (KJV) Jesus tells his disciples to go out and buy swords if they do not have one. I doubt that Christ intended his followers to be wimpy pushovers who refused to defend their homes and families.

Likewise in Luke 3:14, Christ does not tell the soldiers amongst his followers to desert their posts. Also, Romans 13:1 says that every soul ought to be obedient to their government.

In my eyes, this means that a soldier who is told to "go here and do this" ought to do so. An American soldier is not responsible for the Iraq war on a grand scale, but he is responsible for his actions in the field.

However, to balance the above, Christ did say that "my...

I would like to point out that in Luke 22:36 (KJV) Jesus tells his disciples to go out and buy swords if they do not have one. I doubt that Christ intended his followers to be wimpy pushovers who refused to defend their homes and families.

Likewise in Luke 3:14, Christ does not tell the soldiers amongst his followers to desert their posts. Also, Romans 13:1 says that every soul ought to be obedient to their government.

In my eyes, this means that a soldier who is told to "go here and do this" ought to do so. An American soldier is not responsible for the Iraq war on a grand scale, but he is responsible for his actions in the field.

However, to balance the above, Christ did say that "my kingdom is not of this world." This poses a problem for anyone who advocates an offensive religious warfare/jihad.

In my eyes, this seems to add up to what many call a "just war" principle. There are (as mentioned in Proverbs) times when war is appropriate. Government must be careful, however, not to resort to warfare prematurely.

Is the Iraq war a "just war"? I guess that's really what all this boils down to. One could argue that we are in the right since Saddam's regime carried out numerous atrocities against the people he governed, but then it seems that we have committed numerous atrocities over there as well. I'm not really sure I've got an answer for that question.

Jsates1 brings out some good points about a "just war". What if a murderer invades your home? Have you no right to defend your family? And, on a national level, what if a tribe of barbarians attacks a Christian nation? Do Christians have no right to defend their own territory? Early theologians resolved this dilemma with the theory of "positive violence" Under this doctrine, and under the right circumstances, an individual does have the right to fight back--and so does a nation. Positive violence aside, there are a minority of Christians who oppose war period. After all, Jesus didn't fight back when the mob came to arrest him and he said:

Then said Jesus unto him, Put up again thy...

Jsates1 brings out some good points about a "just war". What if a murderer invades your home? Have you no right to defend your family? And, on a national level, what if a tribe of barbarians attacks a Christian nation? Do Christians have no right to defend their own territory? Early theologians resolved this dilemma with the theory of "positive violence" Under this doctrine, and under the right circumstances, an individual does have the right to fight back--and so does a nation. Positive violence aside, there are a minority of Christians who oppose war period. After all, Jesus didn't fight back when the mob came to arrest him and he said:

Then said Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword.

—Matthew 26:52


So while I do not agree with Jstates1 interpretations of Luke, I understand his point that accepting the unfortunate reality that sometimes even those who do not want war may be forced into it--and that not responding may result in greater evil than war itself. So what is a just war? If there ever were a just war, it had to be World War II. But if Hitler was such an evil man, and because stopping him was such a moral imperative, you would assume that all religious leaders rallied to support militay action agains him in World War II, right? Wrong.
As far as Iraq being a just war, there is no such thing as a "just" preemptive war. One must always understand the consequences of a preemptive war. It is wrong. We should only consider war as the last resort. According to the principals of a just war, the only time a first strike would be acceptable is when an enemy army is massed at the border, heavy armed, and ready to invade. And that sure as hell was not the case with Iraq.