It's all in the title. A thread in which to discuss your views on just war. (Or war in general.)
Technically it's about writing war, but as your personal view is often reflected in your writing -at least mine is -they go together..

First of all: what kind of war would you say is a 'just' war? Is there a genuinely good reason to have people fight and kill each other?
I would say that there are few. Certainly having a war because one country has land/ressources that the other country's rulers want isn't a good reason.
Liberation, perhaps, can be considered 'just'. If the ruler/rulers of Country A aren't being very good stewards, if their country is falling apart and the people are dying in masses, I would consider a civil war to be fair. Even having allies in Countries B and C come and help put a better ruler in place could be right. (But chose your allies wisely).
If the physical and spiritual realm of your worlds are deeply intertwined, there are more reasons or war, like killing the evil warlord who wants to take over the world. See Lord of the Rings. That would also be a good reason for war.
Take into consideration the culture and worldview of your characters. What would they consider 'just' war?

Next, building upon your views of Just War, how would you portray it in your writing?
If there's a war that your character is fighting that you wouldn't consider a good war, how would you show that? Would you show that? Would you leave your readers thinking that you are of the opinion that any war is okay?
I like to have characters that represent different parts of my worldview. For example, Aislinn shows my love of learning, but not my deeply rooted opinions about dependence on others. Aneesha shows that, and my heart for people, but not the cold, logical part. See?
So I would use a character's thoughts and emotions to portary what I though was wrong or right. Alternately, if I had a character with an opposing worldview, I might show by the consequences of their actions. A retribution of sorts.

How do you keep your writing realistic when you write about war and its consequences?
All wars have a consequence, and often, even if the 'good side' won, it's bad. Think about it: don't even bother to take into account your cause. People are dead. These people had families, people who loved them, and they were fighting for a purpose. Even the people on the opposing side were fighting because they believed their cause to be the right one.
Livelihoods are ruined. A family's means of income might be destroyed. All the money that went towards your war is what didn't go towards feeding people and providing for basic needs. War hurts the general public. You have to show not only the valiant battles and the great results, but the bad stuff as well. War, even if it's justified, is not glorious.
Also, what happened to your character when they fought? War is traumatising. It changes people. Think about how your character changed -did they become harder, colder people who kill without thinking? Are they scarred, mentally? Do they have nightmares, maybe? Or do they have easily-triggered emotional breakdowns? Did it turn them into an advocate for peace? Anything is possible -maybe they became sadistic people who like the power of killing.
They may also have physical scars -they could have a crippling wound. They might never walk again, or they can no longer support their family.

Give your own opinions on these and anything else that comes to mind. What do you think?

*grins * Oh good, you posted! *loves the opening line, by the way *

*shall be back later when she has the proper time to devote to this subject *

I'm glad I made you happy, Airi.

I totally agree. Personal views go into what we think of writing.

I presume you mean a justifiable war, but just war, so that is what I’m gonna operate on.

First of all: what kind of war would you say is a 'just' war? Is there a genuinely good reason to have people fight and kill each other?

I agree that land dispute is not a good reason to go to war. I wouldn’t even say resources either, although I’d like to clarify that one. Invading Egypt because of its wealth of resources would not be justifiable. However, if a ruling country is oppressing the people and cutting off their resources (we see this happening historically) I believe it is the duty of the people to keep their families from starvation and death. They are commanded by scripture to protect their families. At this point, I believe war could be just, if motivated by the right motivations. Obviously many nuances would play into that, however.



I agree. I also happen to think the civil war (not as taught in the public schools) happened to be a just war, although it had bloody consequences and many things were done which were not just. But perhaps my views on that are off topic.

An invading power is another instance I would consider just. Someone bent on oppression, enslavement, and infringement upon worship. This, I think, is the most common method portrayed in fictional writing.

Next, building upon your views of Just War, how would you portray it in your writing?

I think this is really complicated. See, just because I think a war is justified, that doesn’t mean I think it is “good”. I like to show the repercussions of war. I show that what they are fighting to protect is good, but the actual war itself, is bad. It has negative impact, it is not glorious. We hear so many poets praising the glory of war, but it is not glorious. Can it be honorable? Yes. Can there be great men of valor involved? Yes. But the war itself is not glorious. I choose to portray war that way.

I have also chosen to show the motivations of my “warlord” who is actually a usurper. His reasons for going into the war was to purge the land, to till the soil, as a metaphor. You cannot harvest until you break the soil and plant your seeds. I show the greed of the other side, and how their thoughts make sense, in all their despicableness, from their point of view.


How do you keep your writing realistic when you write about war and its consequences?

Loss of life. The devastation on families, land, and the economy. I never want my readers to forget that all life has value. Even those men who did on the opposite side. They aren’t dispensable enemies. They have families, loved ones. Someone is going to come to their door and give them the news of the man’s death. They will have waited for weeks fearing for his life and unable to know if he were dead.

Here are two quotes from my book, after a battle. *chooses ones that will not give too much away for beta readers who are looking over her shoulder now *





The first quote is Tierin’s reflection of his own side. The people he is fighting for. The second quote shows the thoughts he is having for the other side. The men who have a red snake crawling up their chests. They too, are human.

God places value on life. I think it is incredibly important that we never forget that, even amidst war.

I also want to show how violating war is. It is incredibly physiological. I don’t want Tierin to walk out without being impacted by the sounds, the smells, the sights, the feelings. All of those senses are attacked when faced with battle. I also want people to see the lasting effects of the battles fought.

All wars have consequences. Even the ones that are justified.

*skipped over the teasers*

I think I basically agree with Kaitlyn. There might be a few details I disagree on, but overall, I concur.

So, what details do we disagree on? *pushes you to write a post *

I'm not sure.

Over the past couple months I've thought over war and a Christian's response to it a lot, but I'm not sure if I'm any closer to a conviction now then I was then.

So do you feel no war is just?

No. I believe that some wars are just. The problem I run into is where I draw the line of which are just and which aren't.

I think it is virtually impossible to draw the line, unless you are in the situation, myself personally. All wars have negative impacts, especially because not all men fighting on the same side have the same values. Sometimes the right side will commit an atrocity, because men with less scruple inflict harm.

I can give vague “I believes”, but details? I don’t think you can draw a line that close, unless you are in it. Then you have a choice to make. On the outside, we are dealing with hypotheticals.

*nods* Right. Excepting when one is personally given divine knowledge that it is right to participate in a war, there are always exceptions to any rule one could come up with.

Agreed.

I find interesting, is in most of the other threads there is scripture to back up each person's convictions. Where's that scripture here? May I see passages that support Just War?

Specific questions were asked, so it was easier to simply answer the questions asked, Astro.

Be back later.

Okay, thank you. I'll be waiting!

Being the daughter of a third generation Marine (my Grandfather and Great Grandfather have fought in wars. In fact, the only reason my father was not sent into Desert Storm, as my best friend’s father was, is because of my impending birth, but that is a very long story for another time. God was good.) I have heard many arguments made by Christians and none Christians alike about the rightness or wrongness of the wars fought. Either people believe that “if we would all just be friends and put aside our differences, we would live in peace”, or the scripture “love your enemy and turn the other cheek” is used. But what does the Bible really say about war? What does it say about the role of soldiers and how they can reconcile taking the lives of other humans in that role? Well, let’s look at a few verses.

Just like everything else in scripture, it all goes back to Genesis. When God created the earth and put man upon it, He pronounced that it was all good. That is until man sinned. Because mankind chooses to disobey God, we now live in an environment where evil men and good men are at war. God hates war; however, it is necessary to maintain order in the earth and overcome those who would like to destroy good. In fact, the first war ever recorded was the war in heaven where Satan and a third of the angels fought against God and his angels. We also know this war will ultimately be won, by God, through Christ.



Now, it is important, when starting off on this discussion, to mention the fact that God sanctions government authorities to enforce laws. Whether you want to look at the battles fought by the Scottish Covenanters, The Vietnam war, the World Wars, Desert Storm, or even the current war we face now, the fact remains that Christians have had to make the decision to defend and protect their loved ones (which includes the freedom of their loved ones) from generation to generation, be that on a large or small scale. And the Bible is not silent about this subject, as it warns us that evil and war will increase more and more as the time for Christ's second coming approaches.



God set boundaries on mankind by establishing ruling authorities that would make and enforce the laws He gave. The purpose for this was because He knew unregenerate society, without any restraints, would seek to destroy good men. Where we find most of people’s problems with the military action of our government, versus loving our enemies, is that God's law of justice for the taking of a life demands that a life be taken; yet, God's spiritual law of mercy and forgiveness grants that a murderer can be forgiven and restored. How can we reconcile this? Is it a biblical contradiction?

We must understand that God instituted civil authorities to maintain order in the earth. God uses them to restrain evil and they should be obeyed for this purpose. Civil authorities are in place to maintain order in the earth. In the New Testament we see that even Jesus surrendered to the governing authorities because He was submitting to the Father's will.





From these verses we see that governments can elect to bear the sword (go to war) to deal with evil men. Although the act of war is a harsh form of punishment upon evil invaders, the alternative is far worse -- the destruction of innocent people by wicked aggressors.

No soldier who is a Christian desires to kill another; however, the Lord Himself did not chastise a Centurion soldier in the Bible in the matter of his occupation. On the contrary, the Lord commended this man for his great faith when he called upon the Lord to heal his servant. If he was in sin, do you think the Lord would really have set him up as an example not opnly to the people present, but to all of us who would read of his faith years later?



Our military men need our prayers and the protection of the Lord as they go to battle. They fight to keep us safe from harm. They fight so that no daughter must be abused by the hands of evil men. They fight so that evil men cannot strap a bomb to a child and use them to kill those who stand in their way. They fight so that their sons will have the ability to raise their families as they see fit.

This should be the work of the church -- prayer for our men's protection and prayer for the heads of state (to be honest, I don’t care if you don’t agree with them, you can still pray for them because of the great power they hold over the people, including your family). Prayer is powerful. We should pray that war would end as quickly as possible. In fact, we should love our enemies enough to pray for them that they might be saved. We can pray that good will come out of what others mean for evil (Joseph anyone?).

Now, another thing that has to be looked at in this discussion is what the biblical definition of murder is.

When we look at the Ten Commandments listed in Exodus 20:1-17, we find the command "Thou shalt not commit murder", in verse 13. Now, many people find this a contradiction, especially when God has decreed that governments could send men to war to kill other men. The reason is because murder is very different than killing. To murder means “to slay someone in a violent manner unjustly." So, unjust, premeditated killing with the wrong motives of hatred, vengeance, greed, jealousy, etc., is murder. Killing in self defense to protect oneself is not murder nor is executing condemned killers. The very founders of our nation were known to carry a Bible in one hand and a musket in the other in order to defend the freedom they sought here. The freedom to worship God was one of those freedoms they fought for and died for.

That’s all I’m going to go into on the murder topic, since I have a very long winded discussion about murder vrs killing in the self defense thread. Or you can find my thoughts on murder vrs killing on my blog.

Now, it is also poignant to point out that God didn’t just leave it at “governments have the right to go to war”. He also spoke of military codes and conduct in the Bible.

In the Old Testament we find guidelines about military conduct. In fact, unbeknownst to some, many of the regulations used in the US armed forces come directly from the Bible. The instructions given in regard to the battles of Israel are examples that were used to help establish our military so long ago. The Israelites of old had much experience in battle, as throughout their existence, there were but brief intervals when they were not either engaged in war or in danger of it. Listed below are some of the rules given to them regarding military conduct and instruction:

1.) AGE AND QUALIFICATIONS: First they were to take a census of the families indicating that there would be some discernment used in the selection of the males as they were numbered. The enlisting was spread across all the tribes. They were drafted, so that all would share in the burden of war. They had to be males at least 20 years of age and up and all must be physically fit. In fact, those who were mentally and emotionally weak or cowardly were not to be enlisted. They selected men of valor, as they wanted a group of men to be examples to the others and they wanted all to have a sense of national patriotism.





2.) TRAINING AND PAY: All of Israel were liable to be called into active service to play the part assigned to them in furthering God's righteous cause. They were trained and paid for their duties and their needs of maintenance were met. Good officers and captains were chosen to lead the soldiers.





3.) CHAPLAINS IN MINISTRY: Those who were priests (today, those who would be in ministry as chaplains) were not used in combat. They were to be available as ministers to stand and pray before the Lord for the soldiers and the battle.



4.) EXEMPTIONS TO MILITARY DUTY: The Old Testament listed some reasons that males should be excused from military duty. They are as follows:

a.) Those who have just moved into a new home and haven't had time to live in yet.

b.) Those that have just started a new business and have not yet had time to receive a return on it.

c.) Those that are engaged to be married were not to go to battle.

d.) If a man has just gotten married when war breaks out, he is not to go to war for a year.

5.) BATTLEFIELD INSTRUCTIONS: In the Bible there are instructions about treating prisoners humanely, not violating women and children, caring for the civilian populace, relieving wounded soldiers, not destroying the conquered land, etc. Godly morals were to be the code in all of these instances. For example, they were told to enjoy the fruit of the trees of the conquered land, but not to destroy the trees themselves.



The Bible even records personal hygiene instructions on the battle field.



6.) RULES OF ENGAGEMENT: The first thing, before attacking a city, the Israelites were commanded to do was to try to make peace with the enemy. If the enemy refused the conditions of peace, then they were to attack.



As to the extermination of foes, Israel had to remember that punitive war was in the interests of religion and morality and therefore her soldiers were to act, not as murderers, but as God-appointed executioners of divine judgment upon gross idolatry and iniquity (Deuteronomy 7). War was to be viewed as divine surgery for the cutting off of evil wickedness that would defile the rest of the world. God still uses nations today to execute wrath on evil.

Now, I have to sit down and do some other things for the forum before I sit down to write tonight, so I need to wrap this topic up. In closing, though, I'd like to leave you with this verse.



Hope that wasn’t confusing. I was rushing a bit to get it written.

In reference to the war between God and Satan, that is a spiritual war. God has the ability to command war (Old Testament war) where he commands Israel to kill every man, woman, child, and even the animals. That is not Just War, that is Holy War, similar to the Jihad of the Muslims.
In Matthew 24:9-14, Jesus continues about what will happen during the end times: What does he say when the wars come? Are we to fight? No, we will be put to death. Also, many scholars believe that most of this chapter was referring to the time when the Romans attacked Jerusalem, scattered the Jews, and started the persecution. What did the Christians do during the persecution? They laid down their lives, rather than kill their transgressors.
In regards to John 19, let's backtrack a bit to John 18:33-37
Christians are a part of Jesus' Kingdom, for he is our king and presents the commands which we are to follow. Here, Jesus says that he is king of a heavenly kingdom, and if it were an earthly kingdom then we would fight to save him from the Jews. If we are not to fight to save our king, then what can we fight to save?
Now, in Romans 12 you can look back and see what the church is to do. I don't see killing on the list. Peter says in 1 Peter 2:11
By doing good we should silence the words of the ignorant. By serving our enemies, loving them, praying for them. Not just praying that they might become Christians, but praying that God might show us how we can better serve.
Matthew 8 is not really a good example. Should we follow the entire example of the Roman soldier? If so, shouldn't we have slaves? Jesus never said anything about that. Instead, Jesus was loving his enemy. He commended the man's faith, but not everything about him.
I like how Paul says in Romans 13:8-10
We are also called to follow the example of Jesus (the pinnacle of the old covenant, the fulfillment of the old covenant) by (as 1 Peter 2:20-25 puts it)
If we call ourselves Christians, followers of Christ, should we not do the same? Yes, I don't think we should stand idly by, but should we kill? No. The government is to carry out God's wrath, we are to carry out God's love. In 1 Peter 4:8, Peter writes
Love is our calling, love fulfills the law. Not merely love for our friends (Matthew 5:46 'If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that?' ) but also love for our enemies.
Now, did this work for Jesus? Not in the way we would expect. Jesus died, all his disciples (except John) were murdered. I am not a pacifist because it works better than Just War, I am a pacifist because that is what Jesus teaches.

You make a valid point there, Astro. But, more specifically, how does this relate back to your writing? Have you used this information in your own writing, or seen it in someone else'?

Like Aldara said:

Next, building upon your views of Just War, how would you portray it in your writing?

How do you keep your writing realistic when you write about war and its consequences?

I'm loving this discussion, everyone! Keep it up!

I am a firm believer in the fact that the Bible does not contradict itself, Astro. I think you can both love your enemy and defend your family. And while I have more I could say to you, based off of your responses and the scripture verses used, I do not think it is really beneficial. I strongly disagree with pacifism. I've studied it. I've studied what the Bible says. I don't think we can make blanket statements about this, and I believe heart motives and situation play a big role in things. In addition, I have family and friends serving to protect Americans at this very moment. You won't change my mind. I strongly and passionately believe they are not in sin in what they do. Or that I am not in sin when being taught by my father how to defend myself with a weapon.

While some may look on my unmoving stance as a negative thing, I do not. There are some positions of which we are absolutely sure and cannot be moved in. This is one of those.

You, likewise, are strongly opposed to my views. That is your right. But I don't see a point in continuing this argument, as it is becoming circular. So, with all due respect, I am not going to pursue this discussion further. It is not beneficial to me or to you, and I have things which would be more profitable that I must tend to, both in my personal life, and on HW.