Feed on Posts or Comments 24 May 2018

Christianity Johnson on 30 Aug 2008 12:28 am

Who would Atheists Bomb?

This song/video asks the question, “Who would Jesus bomb?” It is a good question, and we can use it as a way to open a larger discussion.

When we consider the words and thoughts attributed to the man named Jesus, it seems clear that Jesus would bomb no one. Jesus was a “turn the other cheek” kind of guy:

Luke 6:27-36

[27] “But I tell you who hear me: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, [28] bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. [29] If someone strikes you on one cheek, turn to him the other also. If someone takes your cloak, do not stop him from taking your tunic. [30] Give to everyone who asks you, and if anyone takes what belongs to you, do not demand it back. [31] Do to others as you would have them do to you.

[32] “If you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? Even ‘sinners’ love those who love them. [33] And if you do good to those who are good to you, what credit is that to you? Even ‘sinners’ do that. [34] And if you lend to those from whom you expect repayment, what credit is that to you? Even ‘sinners’ lend to ‘sinners,’ expecting to be repaid in full. [35] But love your enemies, do good to them, and lend to them without expecting to get anything back. Then your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High, because he is kind to the ungrateful and wicked. [36] Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful.

John 13:34-35

[34] “A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. [35] By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.”

Matthew 5:43-48

[43] “You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ [44] But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, [45] that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. [46] If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? [47] And if you greet only your brothers, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? [48] Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.”

Clearly, Jesus would bomb no one.

Therefore Christians, who follow Jesus, should be radical passivists. There should be no military at all in a Christian nation, as there is no need for one. If America were to follow Christian principles, we would not have a Department of Defense. Instead, we would have a Department of Love.

Isn’t it interesting that we do not have a Department of Love in the United States, given that the great majority of Americans are Christian?

So let’s change the question and ask this:

Who would rational people bomb?

To put it another way:

When is it right for a nation of ethical and rational people to use military force against another nation?

It would seem reasonable that the people of an ethical and rational nation should have the right to defend themselves against an aggressor. If attacked, acting in self-defense to stop the attack would seem to be a valid course of action. This would be one case where bombing would be appropriate.

It is interesting to note that, if everyone on the planet were rational, there would be no war under this philosophy, as there would be no one who would attack first. All disputes would be resolved diplomatically in a rational world.

In what other situation would it be valid for the people of an ethical and rational nation to bomb another nation?

[If you are a Christian who would like to learn more about rational thinking, this web site can help you get started:


3 Responses to “Who would Atheists Bomb?”

  1. on 31 Aug 2008 at 8:23 am 1.noONEimportant said …

    If you KNOW that a nation is ABOUT to attack, but has NOT attacked yet, would it not be right to attack FIRST?

  2. on 31 Aug 2008 at 1:57 pm 2.Jerry Kindall said …

    The Cold War played out without a nuclear exchange not because either side had decided to limit themselves to self-defense. In fact, both superpowers had no real qualms about attacking first, and put together many such plans. Rather, they knew that they could not completely incapacitate the enemy with one strike, making at least some level of retaliation inevitable. And any retaliation was potentially devastating due to the unprecedented destructiveness of the new weapons. It was the logic of mutual assured destruction, not an ethical stance, that kept things in check.

  3. on 01 Sep 2008 at 10:39 am 3.Myron said …

    If you KNOW that a nation is ABOUT to attack, but has NOT attacked yet, would it not be right to attack FIRST?

    If I knew this first hand, and I knew there was no chance to avert the attack by non-millitary means, then your scenario works. But, realistically, the question should be: If your leaders TELL YOU a nation is about to attack, and so they MUST attack first, do you support the decision?

    I say the evidence says leaders cannot be trusted to tell the truth to the public. Also, if you have not yet been attacked, you cannot be certain you will be – intelligence agencies get things wrong, and leaders change theit minds (and a little phone call that says “hey, we know you’re about to attack, and we’ve got a retaliatory strike ready, I’d reccommend against it” might help that process along, particularly in the case ofa country with the millitary power of the US).

    Would you imprison someone for a crime they had not yet committed, because you KNEW they would? Unless you can see the future, that’s not a reasonable position.

Trackback This Post | Subscribe to the comments through RSS Feed

Leave a Reply