I am not sure he would take a position.
And I am not sure your guess at what you call an "obvious position" is correct, either.
Jesus time on earth was primarily about the soul, the relationship between Man and God.
Consider Luke 7. Jesus commends the Roman soldier for his faith. Note that Jesus does not condemn the Roman soldier for their occupation of Israel.
There is nowhere in the new testament that Jesus takes a position on wars between nations, even though in his time wars between nations were more common than today.
So I wonder if Lincoln's second inaugural was more on the mark than your guess, "With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation's wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan, to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations."
2007-09-04 03:13:56
·
answer #1
·
answered by ? 6
·
3⤊
0⤋
Yes it is quite clear what position Jesus has taken on ALL nations... not just Iraq. According to the Bible the earth was created without borders. No countries. Since the first two perfect humans fell from perfection and brought death , illness, pain from original sin into the world , the original purpose for mankind must be brought back to the Creators will.
Soon ALL governments of man and their militarize will perish at Armageddon when the One True God Jehovah ( Psalms 83: 18) establishes His Kingdom on this earth thru his Son Jesus Christ. Listen to the words carefully in the Lords Prayer. Another statement from Jesus. He said " my kingdom is not of this world." Back to basics and a paradise earth. Please read your bible and get to know what the future promises for those who do the True God's will thanks to Jesus Christ His son who defeted Satan and his demons.
2007-09-04 03:38:32
·
answer #2
·
answered by woodster 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
Some would use the "Render unto Ceasar, what is Ceasar's" quote. Meaning not only taxes, but service to your country is a duty. I don't really think this works.
However, if this is truly a war against terrorists, then maybe it has some justification. Some.
It is a shame that everyone, from the Islamic extremists, to the people on both sides of the war movement in the US cannot remember the things that He said was most important.
Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all your heart.
My little children, be ye kind to one another.
2007-09-04 02:58:00
·
answer #3
·
answered by Marje E. 4
·
2⤊
2⤋
I don't know. Like so many of the other questions on these boards; It is such a loaded one. When it comes to my personal life; I am a Christian. When it comes to matters of government; I am a Secularist. That is probably why I'm a Democrat. I am very hesitant to start basing my political views on "What would Jesus do-?" That kind of thinking would start me down the slippery slope I have no taste for in today's conservatives. The fact of the matter is we really don't know. I think Jesus wanted us to develop our own spiritual interpretations of his views and develop our spiritual lives each in our own way. He loves us as individuals. The overarching message of the Bible is that Jesus FORGIVES. That is why I don't think applying biblical thinking to government works very well except in that larger sense. If Jesus expected absolute adherence to his principles; He certainly wouldn't have needed today's conservatives to apply their own interpretation of them on the masses via the machinery of government - He could have just stood by and let us be d-mned to h-ll himself rather than bearing our cross.
That said; My own interpretation - And it just an interpretation; I re-emphasize that no one; Certainly not myself, can speak for Jesus - My own intepretation is that while he would not have been happy with the Hussein regime; I think he would probably have favored other ways of dealing with it than the Bushie's invasion. I certainly think he would have questioned some of the reasoning for it as well.
Let's be honest; Bush would never have had enough support for invading Iraq to do it had it not been for 9-11. Bush used the security concerns that were rife after that event to exaggerate the threat Iraq posed to gain support for the path we've been on for 5 long years now. When I think about it in this context; I remember many parables and teachings by example from Jesus in the Bible. But I do not recall one (Certainly I do not recall everything in the Bible cover to cover; But still...) where Jesus responds to an attack against him or his by a sinner by seeking out another sinner who was uninvolved in the attack to smite. In that context; I'm inclined to think Jesus would have opposed the Iraq war in general...
2007-09-04 03:31:05
·
answer #4
·
answered by ? 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
Funny how you people always pick out a little line here or there without any real study.
It is not hard to figure out what side Christ would be on. He has always been on the side of good and against evil. Remember, God sent plagues and wiped out whole cities of the wicked. The earth was flooded due to it's wicked people. So before you give me the whole "turn the other cheek towards evil" bit.... do some research and learn that you turn the cheek for so long... then you rid the world of that evil, be it by putting it in prison or by fighting it back to the death.
Why is it non-Christians always think Christians can't defend themselves?
2007-09-04 03:03:27
·
answer #5
·
answered by Mr. Perfect 5
·
5⤊
2⤋
No, but I am sure that he did not believe in the occupation of another person's country.
He lived with the Roman occupation of Judea, and most of the Jews did not like their land occupied by a foreign nation.
In fact there were a faction of Jews called Zealots who would carry daggers underneath their robes, and would kill Romans whenever the opportunity presented itself. They conducted guerrilla warfare against the Romans. Two of Christ's Disciples were believed to be Zealots. Peter, and Simon the Canaanite.
2007-09-04 03:00:03
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
5⤊
1⤋
jesus was a man of peace from what i read yet he did become violent with the money exchangers. regarding wwjd, i am sure after a couple of hundred thousand had been killed over the past 30 years in iraq he would have done something. what, who knows.
2007-09-04 05:18:39
·
answer #7
·
answered by BRYAN H 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
Jesus would find it sinful to invade a country so that corporations and shareholders would have a chance to prosper.
He would support Kucinich and his proposed Department of Peace.
Christians will find passages in the Bible to justify the war, just as radical Muslims find violence acceptable per their interpretation of the Koran.
2007-09-04 03:32:44
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
1⤋
Why do the people who generally think Jesus is a fairy-tale get so much self-gratification from claiming that he was a pinko-liberal-commie?
Is their world-view so far from reality that they need a make-believe patron to justify their nonsense?
2007-09-04 03:11:47
·
answer #9
·
answered by floatingbloatedcorpse 4
·
4⤊
0⤋
There is no practical answer to that question for any poster online to figure on it other than opinion but it's purely reasonable to assume religiously that Jesus would object to warring in any form, even here. Actually all given representives of 'god' hold war in disdain. Christ specifically held hypocrites in contempt and shut the door to heaven on rich folks who were unwilling to part with their gold etc.
Christian Origin
A passage from the Christian Gospel of Matthew is often cited as the typical example of the hypocrite: "Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast the mote out of thy brother's eye" Matthew 7:5. The passage means that it would be ridiculous to help someone remove a splinter or a piece of sawdust from their own eye, if you yourself had an entire log in yours and hadn't first tried to remove it (i.e. attempt to resolve your own flaw). See the Discourse on judgementalism.
god and man are synonymous, one just knows more about the other.
2007-09-04 03:09:42
·
answer #10
·
answered by oldmechanicsrule 3
·
2⤊
3⤋