I didn't know Jesus, but I think it would safe to assume that he wasn't a big fan of war. The guy was pretty nice, I think he would probably want to stage a peaceful protest to the violence.

He always seems like a democrat - but his daddy in the OT is definitely a republican.

But, just thinking about him as a man, didn't he focus more on what the individual would do in order to find salvation - not what nations should do in terms of strategy? So it is a bit hard to say.

He always seems like a democrat - but his daddy in the OT is definitely a republican.

But, just thinking about him as a man, didn't he focus more on what the individual would do in order to find salvation - not what nations should do in terms of strategy? So it is a bit hard to say.

I think Jesus would support the 'War on Terror'
And if he were alive today, he'd probably be a AH-64 apache attack helicopter pilot in the United States Airforce!
Naturally, with Peter and John acting as his wingmen, not judas though...obviously.

Whichever side God's chosen people were on, I'd expect.

Deuteronomy 7:

6 For you are a people holy to the LORD your God. The LORD your God has chosen you out of all the peoples on the face of the earth to be his people, his treasured possession.

Old Testament style just war no longer exists. Once Christ came all who seek Him are His people and none of them living the real experience wage war though at times some serve as soldiers in a war. Bottom line God does not support one country over another especially when the leaders are just being greedy and mostly send the poor of their land to fight for them. At least that is my take on it.

I think Jesus would support the 'War on Terror'
And if he were alive today, he'd probably be a AH-64 apache attack helicopter pilot in the United States Airforce!
Naturally, with Peter and John acting as his wingmen, not judas though...obviously.

Whichever side God's chosen people were on, I'd expect.

Deuteronomy 7:

6 For you are a people holy to the LORD your God. The LORD your God has chosen you out of all the peoples on the face of the earth to be his people, his treasured possession.

I think Jesus would support the 'War on Terror'
And if he were alive today, he'd probably be a AH-64 apache attack helicopter pilot in the United States Airforce!
Naturally, with Peter and John acting as his wingmen, not judas though...obviously.

I think Jesus would support the 'War on Terror'
And if he were alive today, he'd probably be a AH-64 apache attack helicopter pilot in the United States Airforce!
Naturally, with Peter and John acting as his wingmen, not judas though...obviously.

Whichever side God's chosen people were on, I'd expect.

Deuteronomy 7:

6 For you are a people holy to the LORD your God. The LORD your God has chosen you out of all the peoples on the face of the earth to be his people, his treasured possession.

I'd say he's on the side of those who oppose war in non-violent ways. Philosophically speaking.

He always seems like a democrat - but his daddy in the OT is definitely a republican.

LOL - and he'd be packin an AK right?

Just curious but in all the wars in history in which all to some degree or another have produced hatred, fear, greed, cruelty etc which wars do you think Jesus would have approved of? For an example do any true believers today think that Jesus would be standing side by side with George Bush right now and patting his back for the loving example he showed of the Christian faith?

Or would Christ be on the side of Saddam? Does Christ rake sides in war? Would Christ have approved the bombing of pearl harbour? Would Christ have approved of the dropping the two nuclear bombs on hiroshima and nagasaki?

Loving thy neighbour as oneself, loving your enemies, doing unto others as you would have them do unto you, turning the other cheek, holding back the sword because those who live by it will die by it etc

How does this reconcile with killing in the name of God or Christ?

Would Jesus say that guns and bombs are ok but not swords and hence allowing for modern warfare? Does Christ believe that eye for an eye applies only to who the governments deem terrorists? Or preemptive strikes for that matter?

Any thoughts?

He always seems like a democrat - but his daddy in the OT is definitely a republican.

But, just thinking about him as a man, didn't he focus more on what the individual would do in order to find salvation - not what nations should do in terms of strategy? So it is a bit hard to say.

Indeed.

And I think that Leo Tolstoy, Mahatma Gandhi, Buddha, and the Dalai Lama would have been homeboys with Jesus.

lol. Jesus was a bleeding heart liberal !! feeding the poor , healing the sick , ect .......... throwing out the money changers ( the halliburtons of the day )

yet most christians seem to be republicans.

Most Christians I know are obsessed with war. They think Bush id God's special messenger. That the USA is a Holy, Sacred country. All we do is right, and all other countries are wrong. It is all about politics, money, and oil.

Jesus was all about peace and love. He would be appalled at our country for what it is doing. And Jesus did, constantly teach passivism, not "self-defence". There is a whole lot more to what he taught than the whole "If someone slaps you on the one cheek, offer the other to him also." He also taught:

But exactly who are the religious voters they hope to attract? Tony Campolo, noted author and sociologist, has coined a term that describes at least part of the movement: “Red-letter Christians.” These people, named after the red ink some Bible publishers use to denote the words of Jesus, hold to traditional Christian beliefs and believe the Holy Spirit inspired the Bible, which they view as authoritative and relevant for faith and practice.

But unlike many evangelicals, the red-letter Christians have broadened their agenda to include issues that, in the past, had seemed like the province of liberals: environmental protection, gun control and opposition to war and capital punishment. They also affirm a Christianity that sees Jesus as transcending partisan politics.

“We are people who want to assure that Jesus is neither defined as a Republican nor a Democrat,” Campolo said. “When asked about party affiliation, the red-letter Christian is prone to answer, ‘Please name the issue.’”

These evangelicals are fed up with “gay-bashing, anti-feminism, anti-environmentalism, pro-war, pro-gun, and Religious Right politics” and looking for candidates who take positions on issues that are “in harmony with the clear teachings of Jesus,” Campolo said.

“These Red-letter Christians are going to end the monologue wherein the Religious Right has been the overwhelmingly dominant voice that has been heard in the media.”

They’re savvy to religious manipulation, too, Campolo noted.

“We don’t want candidates playing games with us, wherein they quote Bible verses or refer to childhood spiritual experiences to validate their claim to being deeply religious people,” he said. “Any efforts to lure young evangelicals by phony displays of religiosity by candidates are likely to turn off the Gen-Xers. These young people want candidates who address issues.”

Campolo believes young people play a major role in the evangelical left. For those who have rejected the term “evangelical” because of its increasingly pejorative status in secular life, the “red-letter” term lets them recognize a significant evangelical minority with which to identify, he said.

It’s a sizable group, to be sure, encompassing the “emergent church,” the house-church movement and “various other alternatives to traditional religiosity.” Sociologists estimate up to 35 percent of evangelicals fall into the “red-letter” category.

Melissa Rogers, a visiting professor of religion and public policy at Wake Forest University Divinity School, believes moderate evangelicals often take liberal stances politically but remain conservative theologically. Many African-American pastors remain conservative in their theology but liberal in their politics.

“Evangelical left” is a relative term, Rogers said. “It’s just important to remember that there are these different categories. Even Jimmy Carter has a pretty moderate-to-conservative theological position, yet he’s a Democrat and fairly liberal in politics.”

According to a 2007 report by the Pew Research Center for People and the Press, just 44 percent of evangelicals say they approve of the job President Bush is doing. Catholics especially are a swing constituency; according to the New York Times, Bush won 52 percent of the Catholic vote in the 2004 elections against Kerry, who is Catholic. Bush received just 47 percent of their vote in 2000. But in the midterm elections last year, 55 percent of Catholics voted Democratic.

Becky Garrison, author of Red and Blue God, Black and Blue Church and senior contributing editor of the Christian satire magazine The Wittenburg Door, characterized the progressive evangelicals as a diverse group slowly gaining momentum but that hasn’t quite “gelled” yet.

“It’s simmering,” she said. “There are a lot of young people under the surface doing amazing things. Something is going on here. There is a seismic shift. There’s something happening that is going on well beyond the institutional church that we see on TV.”

Along with the grass-roots current, several prominent voices have emerged in the middle ground between evangelical and progressive, including former President Carter, megachurch pastor and author Rick Warren and Richard Cizik, vice president for governmental affairs at the National Association of Evangelicals.

Cizik, a self-described “Ronald Reagan conservative,” has urged evangelicals to make environmental stewardship central to their political mission. He has been attacked for that stance by prominent old-guard evangelical leaders like James Dobson.

Warren, pastor of the Southern Baptist-affiliated Saddleback Church in Lake Forest, Calif., has held conferences, including one with special guest Obama, about combating Third-World poverty, human trafficking and AIDS. Warren, like Cizik, dismissed criticism from far-right groups.

The movement of Warren and other evangelicals into seemingly uncharted territory for the Religious Right is not entirely new, experts say.

Carter didn’t shy away from talking about his faith in office, Rogers pointed out. What is new is the attention the new evangelical field has received from politicos and the media.

“One of the things that has ... [captured] our attention has been the findings about the correlation between the church attendance factor and one’s voting factor -- the God-gap,” said Rogers, who runs a blog about the intersection of religion and politics (melissarogers.typepad.com). “This area, which has always been somewhat sort of interesting and relevant, suddenly got white-hot.”

Now that these politically moderate evangelicals could play a possible role in deciding close elections, the mainstream media and political strategists have taken note.

“The media has realized they’ve given too much attention and fed the presumption that the evangelical community is monolithic, and they need to go back and revise that statement,” Rogers said. “Because we’ve come off of a lot of close elections, people are looking at all types of communities. They’re looking for small shifts that can make a significant difference.”

But the rise of an evangelical middle isn’t the same thing as the re-emergence of a “Religious Left” as powerful or unified as its counterpart on the right.

Indeed, a 2006 article in the Washington Post noted that although the mellowing of evangelical Christianity may be “the big American religious story of this decade,” that evolution should not be confused with a rise of the religious left.

Even though the Republican advantage among evangelicals most likely will decline from the high-water mark in 2004, “a substantial majority of white evangelicals will probably remain conservative and continue to vote Republican,” the Post said.

Rogers said one thing that unites so-called reformer evangelicals, regardless of their political commitments, is their willingness to question religious authorities and “pull back the curtain” to challenge the people calling the political shots.

And no matter what party they’re voting for this election, evangelicals and their increasingly complex subgroups show no sign of fading from the public consciousness as a political force.

Red-Letter Christians believe that Evangelicalism has been exploited by both right-wing and left-wing political movements, and they endeavor to create an Evangelical movement that focuses on the teachings of Jesus Christ, particularly in regard to social issues. "Red-Letter" refers to New Testament verses printed in red letters to emphasize the actual words that Jesus spoke without the use of quotations (see Red letter edition). While many Christians have defined themselves as such over the years, a mass-market movement was initiated by authors Tony Campolo and Jim Wallis who felt the Religious Right spend too much time on two issues: abortion and homosexuality. They believe Christians should be promoting biblical values such as peace, building strong families, the elimination of poverty, and other important social justice issues.[1]

The social issues valued by Red-Letter Christians include taking care of the poor, spreading the Gospel (see also the Great Commission), and loving one's enemies. They believe that these are the issues that Jesus spoke of directly, and therefore these issues should be political priorities. Other issues such as homosexual rights, abortion, and war are viewed as important but over-emphasized by both liberals and conservatives.

On the reason for creating Red-Letter Christians, Campolo said, "The purpose of this gathering was not to create a religious left movement to challenge the religious right, but to jump-start a religious movement that will transcend partisan politics."[2]. Campolo has released a book to help explain this, called Red Letter Christians, A Citizen's Guide to Faith and Politics (Regal Books, February 2008).

He supported wars against people who endangered those civilizations which nurtured his own laws and values. Thus', while he might not support a war between different believers in himself, say jews, christians, and muslims, he might support a war against a civilization which had overtly threatened to destroy/kill off any humans who expressed a belief in god, or a desire to follow gods precepts.
================================================================================
=================


He would not support a war started by one of his believers against a none believer in his name. He made that clear.

And yet, given that jesus and god are one and the same, god not only supported such wars, he actually ordered them for the protection of his selected people.

In Exodus 17 Amalek attacked the Israelites and there was a just war against them. The chapter ends stating the Lord will war with Amalek from generation to generation. Amalek was an Edomite chief.

1 Samuel 15 revisits the Amalekites and the Lord orders Saul to commit genocide against Amalekites. Saul disobeyed and was rejected by the Lord.

In 1 Samuel 27 David continues this war and finally in 1 Chronicles 4:43 the remnant of the Amalekites are defeated.

In Numbers 31 the Lord ordered Moses to war with the Midianites.

Deuteronomy 20 calls for the destruction of the complete destruction the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites, and the Jebusites.

In Judges 3 God gave victory to Othniel against Cushan-rishathaim king of Mesopotamia.

However, Israel suffered a plague which was blamed on Israelite participation in the local religion and sexual immorality. For this reason, according to the Torah, Moses was ordered by God to punish the Midianites. He dispatched against them an army of 12,000 men, under Phinehas the priest; this force defeated the Midianites and slew all their males, including their five kings, Evi, Rekem, Zur, Hur, and Reba. These five kings may have been the rulers of the five clans descended from their eponymous folk-ancestor's sons.

It may be noted that these five princes of Midian are called by Joshua[11] the vassals of Sihon, the Amorite king of Heshbon. It is possible that Sihon had previously conquered Midian and made it a vassal, and that after his death the Midianites recovered their independence. The Israelite soldiers set on fire all the cities and fortresses of the Midianites, carried the women and children into captivity, and seized their cattle and goods. God later ordered Moses to have the Israelites slay every Midianite male child and every woman, however, the soldiers spared the female virgins, who were then given to the Israelite soldiers.[12] It appears from the same account that the Midianites were rich in cattle and gold. The narrative shows that each of the five Midianite tribes was governed by its own king, but that all acted together against a common enemy; that while a part of each tribe dwelt in cities and fortresses in the vicinity of Moab, another part led a nomadic life, living in tents and apparently remote from the seat of the war. The account of Moses' war against the Midianites, and particularly his order of extermination, is highly questionable, as they reappear as a major power several generations later, in the time of Gideon.

The Biblical account of the battle between the Midianites and Gideon[13] asserts that the Israelites suffered at the hands of the Midianites for a space of six years. The Midianites seem to have been then a powerful and independent nation; they allied themselves with the Amalekites and the Kedemites, and they oppressed the Israelites so severely that many were obliged to seek refuge in caves and strongholds; Midianite raiders destroyed crops and reduced them to extreme poverty.[14] The allied army of Midianites and Amalekites encamped in the valley of Jezreel[15] after having crossed the Jordan. Gideon with his army encamped by the fountain of Harod, the Midianite army being to the north of him. With 300 men Gideon succeeded in surprising and routing them, and they fled homeward across the Jordan in confusion.[16] A point worth noting is that here only two Midianite kings, Zebah and Zalmuna, and two princes (or generals - Hebrew: שַׂר), Oreb and Zeeb, are mentioned.[17] This would show that only two tribes bore the name "Midianites," while the remaining three probably were merged with other tribes, including perhaps partly with the Israelites. Midian is stated to have been "subdued before the children of Israel, so that they lifted up their heads no more."[18] In fact, aside from allusions to this victory,[19] Midian is not mentioned again in sacred history except in Judith 2:26, where the term "Midianites" seems to be a mistake for "Arabians."

Judges 3:1 Now these are the nations that the LORD left, to test Israel by them, that is, all in Israel who had not experienced all the wars in Canaan. 2 It was only in order that the generations of the people of Israel might know war, to teach war to those who had not known it before.

I'd say he's on the side of those who oppose war in non-violent ways. Philosophically speaking.

Indeed.

And I think that Leo Tolstoy, Mahatma Gandhi, Buddha, and the Dalai Lama would have been homeboys with Jesus.

Christ believes in turning the other cheek. the usa did turn the other cheek for 30 years.

As you would appreciate from my earlier posts , i consider jesus to be a part of god. Thus i think you can look at what wars jesus might have supported by looking at those god supported.

He supported wars against people who endangered those civilizations which nurtured his own laws and values. Thus\', while he might not support a war between different believers in himself, say jews, christians, and muslims, he might support a war against a civilization which had overtly threatened to destroy/kill off any humans who expressed a belief in god, or a desire to follow gods precepts.

A little less assuredly, i suggest he might support a war (or at least strong military action) which was designed to prevent even greater human suffering such as a war to prevent genocide.

Such action would well fall within the parameters which god outlined as acceptable for human behaviour. He specifically allowed, and at times strongly encouraged or even ordered, humans to kill other humans to protect individuals (as in a state police force) or in military action to protect an ethical society from a non ethical one.

Thus hitlers treatment of the jews\', and japans treatment of just about everyone not japanese ,during the second world war, might well provide reasons for gods approval of actions designed to prevent any extension of this human suffering.

Within the context of wars, things like the use nuclear weapons are not quite as clear. However, gods use of an equivalent force on soddom and gommorah indicates he might have no ethical problem with an act which circumvented continued, or further, evils.

I do not believe he would necessarily support a democracy against a totalitarian state. God is not innately a democrat.
It would depend on the comparative ethics/values of the two states and populations involved.\'

Like mainpoint, if you judged by the comparative morality of the two societies (and this is difficult to do given the many nations and religious practices within them) I suspect that god might come down on the side of the muslims at htis time in history.

After all, why and with whom, does jesus actually go to war. He leads the heavenly armies down from heaven on a white charger, sword in hand. His enemies are those who oppose gods expressed will and those who have rebelled against his will, laws and precepts.

You would have to think carefully, to decide whether islamic, or western, civilisation at present, is acting more in accord with the expressed will and laws of god.
Personally i believe that people who think jesus was such a pacifist that he would have allowed evil to prosper by encouraging good men not to stop them have misunderstood the nature of jesus.

When jesus saw what he considered evil, such as the money changing, he acted to stop it. Certainly he encouraged non violence, where that was possible as the most appropriate, and productive, first response, (and so it often is) but the idea that this world is so unimportant that we should die, rather than act to change it, is contrary to the overall message of the bible.
I believe he expected his followers to protect them selves, and their families, in order to stop evil prevailing, and that he understood that they lived in a world where non violence, taken to extreme, was not a workable solution to anything.

For example he expected people to render to the civil authorities what was due to them. As those authorities often expected military service(and this was part of old testament teaching) then jesus would expect his followers at that time to do military service if that was part of their states expectations\'( there are a number of exceptions to this)

God expects us to keep the peace on earth, and a lot of his laws and precepts are aimed at achieving this

In Exodus 17 Amalek attacked the Israelites and there was a just war against them. The chapter ends stating the Lord will war with Amalek from generation to generation. Amalek was an Edomite chief.

1 Samuel 15 revisits the Amalekites and the Lord orders Saul to commit genocide against Amalekites. Saul disobeyed and was rejected by the Lord.

In 1 Samuel 27 David continues this war and finally in 1 Chronicles 4:43 the remnant of the Amalekites are defeated.

In Numbers 31 the Lord ordered Moses to war with the Midianites.

Deuteronomy 20 calls for the destruction of the complete destruction the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites, and the Jebusites.

In Judges 3 God gave victory to Othniel against Cushan-rishathaim king of Mesopotamia.

And yet, given that jesus and god are one and the same, god not only supported such wars, he actually ordered them for the protection of his selected people.

But dont Christ's actions and preachings alone show steering away from military? Also does christ ever preach a boiling point at which to stop loving your enemies and turning the other cheek?

This is one of the biggest misconceptions of non-violence. True non-violence doesnt do nothing and allow evil to run riot, that is mistaking non-violence for cowardice. Non-violence is braver than violence because one stands up to violence without weapons and uses love (like christ) to conquer the enemy instead of stooping to a uncivilised mentality of violence.

This point perhaps illustrates a possible misunderstanding. It is possible to love both friend and enemy and yet understand, accept, even condone that certain behaviours bring certain consequences. Biblically it is quite clear that god loves all his children, even those who disobey him. However, the physical consequences of sin are so great, both on sinners, and those sinned against, that god often, albeit reluctantly, punishes the sinners quite severely.

He is actng out of love. The sort of love which a loving arent may feel as he punishes a child, to educate it in proper behaviour. Just as it may be argued that a parent who fails to punish/ discipline a child, to educate it in safe or appropriate behaviour, does not truly love that child enough to punish it, despite the pain that causes the parent; then a god who did not place sanctions on evil behaviour would not be a truly loving god.
So I see it with jesus. Love does not pereclude just sanctions and punishments In fact true love demands this . Otherwise, given the nature of humanity since the fall, sin will prevail, the strong will dominate the weak, and humanity will sufffer, both individually and socially.

Theere is simply no way i can see jesus ( or god) preaching such a message, or accepting such outcomes for good people. The laws, and the spirit, show good people how they should behave, but god does not expect them to simply put themselves at the mercy of evil.

The parable of the talents supports this. We are expected to use our talents appropriately to grow, develop and strengthen ourselves. To simply sit back and rely on the provision of god is not aceptable, even though we need to have faith that "in extremis" god will provide for us.

Thus while we may rely ultimately on the protection of god from evil, he also expects us to do everything within our human talents to counter it .