Is War Good?!?!?!? Part 3 I BBB 61 FULL EPISODE

Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
(00:01):
Hey everybody, and welcome back to another episode of Brains,
Bibles and Beyond. We're so glad that you, buddy
and theologians have come alongside of us as we explore
worldview apologetics. So why don't you grab your
favorite theological receptacle and let's get started?
Oh yeah, spicy. OK.

(00:27):
Yeah, I do that every time. All right, So thank you for
joining us once again for another episode.
And we have a the conclusion of our series that we're doing on
Is War. Good.
War, What is it good for? Yeah.
So it just kind of we're going through some of the different

(00:49):
views on that and and then I'm trying to figure out what the
Bible really says and about it. So I'm going to try to come to a
conclusion on that. But first we have a special
edition of Stump the Theologian.Now, to be fair, I actually gave
Joel a heads up on this questionabout 10 minutes ago.
Yeah. Then when I completely catch him
off guard, I want to make sure he he knew that the passage was

(01:12):
in context before we went through the answer on it.
So just be fair on that, that I completely blind a question like
I normally do. But he also has had about 10
minutes to look into it. So it's not like it's a head
start. He hasn't had weeks of study on
this. So just just want to give him a
quick heads up. Make sure he understood the
question before we we got into it.

(01:32):
So just get started. We're going to get started right
away. We're looking at John 20 verse
23. And it says if you forgive the
sins of any, they are forgiven them.
If you withhold forgiveness fromany, it is withheld.
And then the question is, do pastors have this authority and

(01:55):
ability now? Sure.
OK, So just a real quick contextfor everybody here.
So this would be the same day ofthe resurrection, but now it's
evening and you have disciples in the locked room because
they're scared of the Jews, thatwhole situation.

(02:16):
And Jesus suddenly appears and it's only to 10 because of
course Jews is scary. It is is gone and then Thomas is
missing from this group. So these ten guys and so he, you
know, peace be with you as the Father has sent me.
Even so I am sending you. It says in verse 22.
And when he has said this, he breathed on them and said to
them, receive the Holy Spirit. And then we have our verse 23.

(02:39):
If you forgive the sins of any, they have forgiven them.
If you will hold forgiveness formany, it is withheld.
OK, so this is a similar language, just kind of like the
it's, it's basically the same command that was given in
Matthew. And so we see this kind of in
two different places, the same kind of language, same kind of

(02:59):
idea, maybe slightly different, but it's but it really comes
down the same thing. Matthew 1619 and then 1818.
So Matthew 1619 says, I will give you the keys of the Kingdom
of heaven and whatever you bind on earth should be bound in
heaven. Whatever you loose on earth
shall be loosed in heaven. I think that's the verse that we
actually handled before at some point.

(03:20):
I know how long ago it was. I wouldn't know where to find
it. So and then 1818 truly, I say to
you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and
whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
You can look at the context of those verses too, but it's
essentially that's sort of an idea.
So I guess, you know, one of thefirst considerations is who is
this for? Who is this for?

(03:41):
You know, there actually is a view out there that would say it
is strictly for those 10 apostles.
Like not even Thomas. Thomas missed the boat.
And so I, yeah, most people would say, OK, that's that's not
it. Yeah, that.
That's actually the next verse. Now Thomas wasn't there.
Yeah, right. Right.
OK, so I, I don't think that he totally like now he, you know,

(04:04):
did he ever get the Holy Spirit,you know, Yeah, of course,
right. Of course we know those things
happened. The the idea though here is that
is it transferring to church leadership because now this is
the resurrected Jesus and things.
OK. And Jesus already did give some
church instructions even before his crucifixion.
And so here, you know, is this just church leadership or is

(04:28):
this the church, you know, collectively like the
organization? And so perhaps like a
congregation together determinesthese things.
Or is it only the like pastoral leadership?
Or is it every single individualbeliever?
OK, that that's kind of your options there.
For myself, I would side on it being the body of Christ as a

(04:52):
whole, but I it but it does trickle down to the individuals.
So like the focus would be the body, but but on an individual
like conversation sort of a thing.
So here here's the idea. Christians are involved in this
mission, but it's God that forgives sins.
Only God can forgive sins. If that were not true, then

(05:16):
Scripture has a contradiction because it's been plainly
stated. Only God can forgive sins.
All right, so God is doing it. But often when God does things,
he uses human agency. And so it's kind of like how we,
we sort of misspeak and we'll say like, I've heard the phrase
I, I, I try not to say this at all.

(05:36):
But, you know, back in the day, it was, you know, oh, I, I saved
them. OK, Well, no, you didn't.
God save their souls, but you were the one sharing the gospel
when they believed, you know, sothat's that kind of thing.
So there's a little bit of that element here.
I think that, you know, it's important to understand that we
are not independent of the Holy Spirit in this mission.

(06:00):
OK, That's he, he's doing it. We're these the agents.
All right, so then connecting itwith Matthew 1619 and, and 18
eighteens, which I handle all three verses together here.
It needs to be understood in theold rabbinic legal system, so to
speak, The yeah, the the, the, the binding and losing is sort

(06:24):
of like, are you guilty or innocent?
OK, Are you holding on to the guilt of your sin or are you
forgiven? That's an important distinction.
And so they, they, what they would do in the rabbinic system
back then, it was more than justthat.
It was all the law. And so people would come to

(06:45):
them, you know, 613 lies they had.
No, the people weren't, you know, there's people that
weren't even literate, right, let alone be able to have their
own text. And so they would come to that,
the rabbis, you know, teachers, and they would explain to them
the law and, you know, OK, you did this.
Well, that is sin, but this is how it is handled.

(07:05):
And so now, OK, you believe and you're you are forgiven.
You, you release, forgive us to release, you release from this
guilt kind of a thing. That's the sort of an idea
that's going on. And so with that in mind, all
right, so there is this now a heavy responsibility here that

(07:26):
you have to articulate the gospel in such a clear way that
there is there is no confusion as to whether you have mercy
from God or wrath from God. That's sort of an idea.
And you are to articulate the word of God in such a way that

(07:47):
they know. And so this is where like I
could talk to somebody. Understand the gospel fawn you
to explain it properly. Well, you can mess it up by not
saying the true gospel for sure,for sure.
Well, it's like this. But what the?
Understanding is y'all. It's still based on God opening
your eyes. It's not.
It's not based on how well I articulate.

(08:08):
Once once again human agencies involved so I am professionally
a teacher. OK, but God teaches you you know
it's the Holy Spirit that illumines gives light gives
understanding to doctrine. That's that's true.
I just. Feel like we just put a lot of
pressure on everybody. You got to make sure you
perfectly articulate and. Yeah, that's that's a lot of

(08:32):
pressure. None, None of us do that.
So we're humans. But let me give you a practical
illustration of this. No names.
There are preachers out there, OK, That they will preach in
such a way that sin is never mentioned.
Sure. Hell is not mentioned.
No, none of those things. It's very soft.

(08:54):
I wouldn't even say it's a falsegospel.
They don't even preach the gospel.
Right. So then they, they, they'll talk
about, they can talk about believing.
This is like even the better of that group.
They'll talk about believing. They're not going to talk about
repentance. They're going to talk about the
goodness of God. They're not going to really talk
about the sin of man, you see. It's the wrath of God.

(09:14):
So then, yeah, correct. And so somebody can be
convinced, you know, you can sayso.
Hey, so now you're a brother in Christ.
And really, they had no repentance, no nothing.
They just are kind of joining the club.
Yeah, so to speak. Yeah, OK, I get.
What you're saying they have failed?
OK, Yeah. So that that's what this this is
a heavy responsibility that Jesus is giving.

(09:37):
He's like, look, you're the human agents that are going to
be declaring because you know who else is doing it right?
This is in context of also having the Holy Spirit.
Yes, because what was first? Yeah.
The Holy Spirit, right? And now you have this.
Right. And he's working through you.
So this. This isn't necessarily then
saying that the pastor, preacher, or any individual

(10:00):
Christian can actually forgive sins.
Yeah, not an independent deal. I can't just.
Cause only God can forgive sins.And the Bible is very clear on
that, right? Right.
So this, this, this from time totime can appear as a
contradiction. And there are certain groups of
people who teach, basically teach this that, you know, the
pastor can like, Nah, yeah. No, no, it's, I think it's my

(10:24):
responsibility just as a believer, not as a a leader, but
just just as a believer. It's my responsibility to
articulate the gospel, which includes sin in things in in
such an accurate way. Part of the gospel, part of the
gospel is not being right with God, which is why we need to be
right, made right with God. That's why it's good news 'cause
there's really bad news. Yeah, there is, yeah.

(10:45):
Yeah. OK, so so that's that's the
idea. And it's not that we have to use
highfalutin theological words orsomething.
Sure, it you don't have to use aheavy vocabulary and it's not
that you have to, you know, write a 300 page book or
something. The idea is simply just not
leaving an element of the gospelout, you know, so that that you

(11:07):
can declare and say, OK, you know, you might want to add the
caveat of, well, as long as you're not lying to me, as long
as this is real, then you are forgiven.
Sure, because we know that because of the Word, the
authority of the Word of God. So it's more of you pronouncing
forgiveness. That God has done.
That God has done yes, OK, versus actually granting

(11:27):
forgiveness that you have. Done.
OK, We're just simply the human agents.
Oh, on behalf of God, in God's work, we're not granting
forgiveness. Even on behalf of God, we're the
best forgiveness and we're acknowledging that, OK, That
that's at least that's your interpretation of this, correct.
OK. That's my interpretation.
OK, sounds good. All right, you guys Be this, be
the deciders. Did we stump the theologian?

(11:49):
Was the answer satisfactory? Sure.
Or you have more some comments on it, send those to us and we
would love to. Let me add some feedback.
Let me add one more thing. All right, So just just to make
it clear. PSPS.
Yeah, the the because my mind, my mind's a little scrambled
here. So I'm trying to get together.
When you're done giving the gospel to somebody, you have the

(12:12):
ability to talk as long as you want.
OK, so you have delivered the full gospel.
They should know where they stand at the end of that
conversation. They may not believe what you
say, but they should know, like,clearly.
Well, they told me that, yeah. I mean, I'm not going to be with
Christ when I die because of, you know, that's what they said
there. There should be no room for

(12:33):
error with that. They should know if they're in
the club or not. So you're saying part of the
gospel is declaring that you're not right with God?
Yeah, like you, you have to. Yeah.
So that's like the binding and the losing, like, no, you're
still bound by sin. You, you are still under the
wrath of God. You have not repented, you know,
that kind of a thing. So I just want to make sure that

(12:54):
was clear. All right, so there we go.
This is Joel's interpretation ofthis verse.
And I think you explained your position quite well and
hopefully that makes sense to everybody.
And if you have comments on thiscourse, send them to us.
Put them in that, put them in the comments.
We'd love to hear some feedback and I'm sure there's some other
points of view on this and, and we are welcome to hear them.

(13:15):
Yeah. And we will have further
discussion if needed. So all right, we are going to
move on to our main topic. OK.
Is war good? Yeah.
And that that makes your brain hurt when you really think about
it sometimes. There's a lot to it.
There's a lot to it. As we found out so far.
Yeah. So we're, we're, we're working
through some of these questions.Joel has been taking turns

(13:35):
taking different positions on that.
I don't know about ahead of time.
This one I do know about cuz we're ran out of positions to
take. And so we're going to, we're
going to wrap this up with the final position on the view of
war. And you know, maybe maybe you're
sitting there thinking, you knowwhat?
I got a different position doesn't match any of these.

(13:55):
That's OK. You know, you know, this is
going to kind of working throughthinking through what the Bible
really says and and just kind oflooking at that big picture way.
So all right, Joel, let's get started.
So here, here's my final introduction on it, but I'm
going to add a little more than I did before.
So there are four major views onthe morality of war and

(14:18):
pacifism. War is never good, but just war,
which is what I'm going to be defending.
Just where I'm saying now is this is my position OK?
This is officially your position.
This. Is yeah, before I was.
Taking false positions? Yeah, faking the position.
Right, right. It's irrationally unlike
pacifism with just war. War does have the ability to be

(14:38):
justified. It's not always justified, of
course. Sometimes we are actually
morally obligated to go to war. So it's.
Yeah, it's not just that. Oh, it's a that's that's kind of
a good thing. It's like, no, you, you ought to
do it or you're actually wrong, you know, OK at times.
OK, then realism. That's where, you know, hey, war

(15:02):
justifies itself. This is the way the world works.
It always has, always will. And so it works.
Better the more where there is. Yeah, it's, you know, but that
pursuit of power and things, that's actually how you provide,
you know, the, the peace and prosperity for your citizens and
expands your borders. That's just more peace and
prosperity for more citizens. Even so, you know, they, they,

(15:23):
they kind of like have us. For the neighboring countries.
Yeah, right. Well, you know Brazil, so, yeah,
it's it's why is Brazil so big? OK, moving on.
So then there's the holy war. You know, I forgot to say what
it's why just wars, unlike realism.
Sorry. OK, so just war, though.

(15:44):
It's saying that, you know, war must be, there's no alternative.
War must be justified by a moralframework of justice and peace,
both things. So like realism?
That moral framework should comefrom the Word of God.
Yes, yes. Not just randomly made-up by an
individual. And really that's the whole
other conversation that we've actually already had, you know,

(16:04):
like is God good series and stuff where God is the standard
of morality, that kind of thing.So when I'm, when I'm using
terms like moral here, like I, Imean that biblical worldview
standard, sure. OK, So it must be justified by a
moral framework. And of course, I think there's
other people that can have just war, just war view, and they

(16:24):
would reject my position as God is the objective, universal,
consistent standard of good. Sure.
So then I think they're going tostill have some problems with it
because of that. So that's kind of an important
distinction too, I guess. But yeah, so.
So realism just says, hey, war, war justifies itself, so who

(16:45):
cares? You know, it doesn't need any
external moral framework or anything.
Whereas just war says no, it absolutely it does.
Then you have like holy war. You know, the war is good when
waged to spread the faith movement.
You know, we'll say Christianityin our case.
Yep. But unlike holy war, then just
war, the, the, the causes for war must be tied to the common

(17:11):
good, not only to church leadership, You know, so we're,
we're actually looking out for all citizens, even of all
faiths, you know, we're looking out for literally everyone.
What is the best for peace, justice, that sort of thing.
Prosperity really isn't even necessarily on the menu.

(17:32):
That's kind of a second hand thing.
Sure, because we really want justice and peace.
If we can get prosperity as well, obviously we'll take it.
But that's not #1I. Kind of like freedom too.
Yeah, well, yeah. Well, if true peace requires
freedom, yeah, true peace, there's a false peace that's out
there, one that the the final Antichrist will offer.

(17:53):
That's a probably another episode there.
But anyways, so then what is just War?
So here's a quote I have from this book.
I've gotten a lot out of it. I, I recommend it.
It's called Ethics of War, a short companion by Paul D
Miller. And just talking like, maybe I
should just shoot an e-mail out there and see if I can get this,
this person to come on our podcast because this is really,

(18:13):
it's a really good book. And so anyways, this is his
quote here. Just War is an instrument to be
used by legitimately constitutedgovernment, which it has
responsibility for all citizens of all faiths to uphold justice
and peace in the face of violentassault.
OK, so it really couldn't say itbetter myself.

(18:34):
I had a quote, but I think it's just very concise and involves a
lot there. In fact, I'll let me read it one
more time because it's a lot of words so if you're just
listening it might be hard to digest.
Just War is an instrument to be used by legitimately constituted
government which has responsibility for all citizens
of all faiths to uphold justice and peace in the face of violent
assaults OK all right with that said OK there is five Cree Cree.

(19:05):
There is five key criteria therewe I can speak when we have we
have a question here when when is going to war just so before I
give my. Five.
That's the big question then. Right.
Yes, so I there's there's five key criteria.
This is standard. This is not just something I'm
making up. So I'm just I'm just
representing this position here.So off the top of your head,

(19:26):
Nate, what would you say if you had to come up with some
criteria? When is going to war?
Just what? What might you?
Say when England's taxing you too much and you can't take it
no more and you have to. You have to fight for your
rights. So you're mentioning A cause?
Yeah, the cause is important. The cause is important.

(19:48):
What, what, what would you what?What would be a distinction a
good distinction between good and bad 'cause then?
You know, so much of it, so of it, much of it changes with with
time, right? Like when we fight our

(20:09):
Revolutionary War, the taxes or what like 2% or whatever it was.
This is insignificant. We only have a few items.
It was super low. And we, and, and the big
complaint was we're getting taxed, but we're not getting any
representation in the government, right?
That was our big complaint, right?
One of them. I mean, there's others, but that
was one of the big complaints. I mean, but now we're taxed at

(20:31):
what, 3040%? You know, when you, when you
count, when you count everything50%, you know, if you're rich,
you get really taxed. Sure, but we're not going to war
and fighting for independence, right?
So, so some of that changes overtime, you know, so.
Well, what? What are some universal
principles though that we could have?
Yeah, maybe we'll step away froma specific war right now.

(20:53):
I'm not afraid of going there, but just right now just kind of
back up. And what are some universal
principles that can be consistent, maybe a little bit
more objective? Obviously if you you're, if you
were attacked by a foreign power, you would defend
yourself, right? OK, that would be 1.
Any nation that's attacked, whether they're being attacked
for good reason or not, has the right to defend themselves.

(21:15):
Any morally right like we, we have the right of self-defense.
I'm with you on that. You I would.
Say aggressors coming in, Yeah, we're going to get rid of that.
On that behalf, I think you it would be morally accessible to
also defend others being attacked.
The innocent. Yeah, especially those those who

(21:36):
are weaker and unable to defend themselves in the case of like a
especially like a mass genocide or something crazy, you know,
you think award what you of course there was there was that
going on. Plus someone trying to conquer
the world who who was who was also, you know, spreading evil
ideology. That was pretty bad.
And and and yet even then New America was trying to stay out

(21:57):
of it. Like not you guys fight your you
know, this is over in Europe. You guys fight until, you know,
we got attacked with Japan and we stayed out the war.
Now what do we eventually got in?
Probably eventually, you know, but.
Yeah, eventually. But at the same time, like you
also don't go looking for fights, especially other
people's fights, right? But at some point you're like,
OK, there's some bad things going on here.

(22:18):
We need to step in and we have amore obligation.
So I think that would be one we have our and there's a lot of
things that would play into that, especially when you're
fighting for someone else because.
Yeah, yeah. Which country is right, you
know, and all those things. But that's a super hard one.
But. But defending of the innocent
would be would be. And that's not just for war,
that's just life in general, right?
If you're walking down the street and some innocent person

(22:38):
is being assaulted by an evil person, you would step in.
You have the moral obligation tostep in and defend them.
All right, so we have on. The country scale there's more
complicated, but all right, we. We almost spent too long in one
of these. So yeah, that's one one of the
five criteria. Just cause.
And so then what? What about intentions?

(23:04):
So it's so. It's distinct from cause.
So there's a cause to go to war,but what are your intentions
when you go to war? Should be to win.
OK. But what's winning?
Yeah. That that that target moves a
lot of times. We had for a while, we had a
heart and mind campaign. Remember that with from America

(23:24):
over in the Middle East, there'sa heart and mind campaign.
So instead of actually like conquering the, you know, the
physical enemy with warfare, it was more of we go there, try to
set up reforms and whatnots and,and so that, you know, it was,
it was, it was hard to say, you know, when, when did you finish?

(23:45):
When did you win? Did you win?
Yeah, it's that's, that's a tough one.
So like I, you know, aiming at just to combine the words we
keep saying just in peace, right.
And justice and peace. And so aiming at just peace, you
know, to have that together, revenge would not be good.
Do you agree? Yeah, OK.

(24:07):
In theory, although defending yourself is.
I think there is a distinction there.
There's a distinction. Yeah, yeah, I think because.
Going just for the sake of vengeance is not the same as
defending. Because because revenge is like
you. You offended me, you hurt me or
something like that. Me hurt you back and I'm just
out of spite. I'm just going to hurt you back.

(24:28):
In other words, that is the goalin another.
Self just hurting. Just I want to hurt.
You not solving the problem. Right, right.
And so that's why revenge wouldn't be a part of this.
That's not a that's not a good intention, but just peace is.
And I think like conquest, like,you know, that's a tricky one

(24:49):
because it's it's like the idea of you don't want to just have
the intention of I'm going to take all of your land, all of
your things, And that's kind of where the realism view, right?
So I'm just going to keep bulldozing over everybody.
Yeah. I, I think there's, you have to
understand your limits. Like what?
What do I intend to do? We'll just leave it there.

(25:10):
But. And those, those things need a
line with scripture. You know, we are just even
though we have enemies, we stillneed to love them.
And that involves even when you kill them on the battlefield, I
think that you still love your enemies to a degree.
You're doing what is right. But, you know, here's a strange
idea for a lot of people, but it's actually mentioned in that

(25:31):
book too, with the the ethics ofwar there just, you know, to
even have a time for soldiers toto, you know, grieve the enemy's
loss. Sure.
Because they are human beings. And a lot of times they're just,
they're also guys just followingorders, you know, and it's not
necessarily that you hate each other.

(25:54):
It's that there is cause and tension.
There's all these things going on.
The the individuals fighting thebattle are still human beings.
There's a lot of soldiers that have a lot of, you know, guilt
and things they carry. You can talk to veterans.
They're the veterans have a highsuicide rate even because of the
guilt they'll carry for these things.

(26:15):
And, you know, sometimes that, that proper grieving can help
with that. And there's, there's resources
out there. Definitely reach out to some
pastoral help and resources, other, other help too.
Yeah, that's, that's kind of a, another branch of this that
would kind of like a, a consequence of war that could be
dealt with. So I'm not really wanting to
deal with that now, but I thought it'd be worthy to

(26:35):
mention, worthy to mention there.
So it's important. So what?
What about? What about this proportionality?
What do you mean by that? So the idea is that the overall
good gained by the war, it must outweigh the evil done.

(26:57):
OK. Are you with me?
Sure, because because war bringsdeath and destruction and so and
that's what you're meaning, yes,where brings death and
destruction. So so whatever our, our, our
gain is by the outcome needs to be needs to outweigh needs to
outweigh be greater than what wehad to go through the the means
don't necessarily justify the answer.

(27:18):
The a tie is not good enough equal good to the evil.
You know, like that's. Sure.
And that kind of goes a little. Countries to slip away with with
damage. I mean, something beneficial
needs to come out of it, correct?
For. One of the countries at least
right and. It could just be stopping, you
know, a Hitler type person sure like that the evil that that had

(27:40):
to get done. You know, it's, it was the good
that came out of it, I think faroutweighed the evils of war.
Yeah. And of course, I know with a,
with a subject like this, I'm sure there's, no matter what you
say, there's going to be disagreements and people are
going to get upset with a lot ofthings.
Too, but absolutely. But this is just.
I think this is proper. But I think just thinking
through it and then like actually say, OK, what does the

(28:00):
Bible say about this? And and this thing through it is
good regardless of your position.
Like there's good arguments for for different positions.
I mean, legitimate arguments like, you know, love your
enemies is a is a, is really in the Bible, right?
It really is, you know, yeah. And do not murder in the Bible.
And so having the distinction ofmurder and killing, it's

(28:22):
important to think through like.It is specifically in the Bible
is talking about people that want to kill you.
Yeah, yeah, they, they want to kill you.
And you're supposed to love themand bless them, you know, and
they're. But I think war does play a part
in all this. I think both things can happen.
And that might be a hard thing to to get in your head at first
because that, you know, first for me too, I was like, wait a

(28:44):
minute, it's either one or the. Other it definitely can be.
But yeah, it just was work it through.
How about this one? How soon do you pull the trigger
to go to war so that the the actual criteria marker is it
says last resort. I mean, we would have tried,
right? We tried the nonviolent options.

(29:05):
We tried diplomacy. We tried, you know, whatever
there is. Yeah.
What what do you think about? There's a there's a nation
coming to war against your nation.
Now, don't don't think America right now.
Just think like it could be any nation.
Any OK A nation comes to war against your nation and they are
pretty much just as powerful, maybe more powerful than your

(29:27):
nation. The more powerful you definitely
send the plots the plants, right?
Well, but so like, you know, what about saying, hey, what if
we can just be subservient to you and pay tribute to avoid
war? What?
What? How does that sit with you,
Nate? That.
Doesn't sit very good with me. But wouldn't that be I?
Like I like freedom. Yeah.

(29:48):
I mean, there's still it dependson the the relationship there, I
mean. It could be if you had no way of
winning, that's an option. Like when Rome took over, right?
A lot of times it was diplomacy.It was like, hey, we will kill
you if you resist. However, we're, we're going to
let you keep, you know, your religious practices, You allow
your civic practices. We'll even let you have some of

(30:11):
your own rulers. We'll, we'll, we'll put ours in
too. We'll.
We'll appoint some governors andyou just send us your tribute
and don't, don't rebel and we'llbe happy.
So. So what would you prefer that
over war? If, if I had no chance of
winning, that would be better than dying, I would.
Well, maybe. I don't know, probably not.

(30:32):
Lots of deaths when you think about how they're broken.
The widows, the orphans. Yeah, I know.
I mean, this is all the arguments against war.
I mean, war brings a lot of bad things, yes.
And, and so I mean, you, you want truly, you want to make
sure that whatever 'cause I'm fighting for, I really believe
in, right? Yeah, like.
And and yeah. So is it truly the last resort

(30:54):
'cause I, I, I think that, you know, last resort's good then,
but you're also going to come into conflict with what are you
not willing to give up Yes. You know, cuz at some point your
nation is kind of no longer a nation.
You've lost your identity. This has happened in other
groups. You know, you think like the,

(31:14):
you hear about the Anglo Saxons that came in and you know, the
Anglos. That's why I became England.
It's Anglo land. The original kind of English is,
you know, basically the Welsh today they got which it means
like like foreigner or somethinglike that is what I mean.
So they like in their own land, they were a foreigner because
they essentially got totally wiped out.

(31:35):
I'm Welsh, our last name is Welsh.
Is that right day? That's a Welsh name.
Supposedly that's what I was told.
That's interesting. So that's now, you know, a
little bit of your history anyways.
Yeah, that's that that's that's the idea.
Like, so you don't want you obviously don't want to be

(31:56):
erased off the the, you know, the the borders of the world
right now. They were just basically
brutally attacked and that's allthat was left.
And you know, whatever. And so if you.
Strip conquer Yeah, if you. Saw something like that coming,
You know, it's kind of like, well, what would be willing to
do to avoid mass slaughter? You know, and in in today's

(32:19):
world by mass slaughter lots, you know, we might be
considering, you know, of course, bombs, but nuclear
warfare, of course, which which I am going to that's a that's at
the end of our conversation today on we're going to address
nuclear warfare. So hold on to that one.
Is it good or bad? That's the question and we're
going to consider a lot of things so.
Can something be both? So we'll hold hold on to this

(32:44):
conversation later. All right.
So when is going to war just, well, it's got to be a just
cause, right? Intention.
And there has to be in proportion, you know, the good
has to outweigh the evil. It needs to be a last resort.
And so I think that still needs to get flushed out a little bit,
but we'll be done with it today.Like that's an idea that we need
to think through, yeah. Worse should worse should not be

(33:05):
your first option. That's definitely can be agreed
on. Yeah, right.
And and you know, and what all do you try ahead of time, you
know, sort of the diplomacy and all these things, but.
How quickly do you pull that trigger?
Do you just surrender because they're better or do you fight,
you know, and fight and die? And yeah, well, yeah, I mean,
and it's hard to. So some of this is hard to

(33:26):
separate just from your Americanmindset, right?
Oh yeah, 'cause our our Americanmindset is, no, you're not
taking my stuff. Right.
We, yeah, we are a different kind of nation.
We. We are.
And we, we are very, you know, we're we're built on rebellion.
We're built on literally, Yeah. Freedom fighter.
No one's going to control us. We will all die.

(33:46):
We will be free. Yeah.
You know, and, and, and that andthat that attitude has permeated
our society forever. Right or wrong, some of it.
Some of it is based on biblical truth, and some of it is just,
you know, the American spirit, you know.
Like. And so it's hard to
differentiate sometimes. Sometimes you got to really stop
and think, why do I want to be free?

(34:10):
Is it just because I don't like people tell me what to do?
Or is there a better moral reason for freedom?
Well, and free from what you know, it's exactly.
Free for from what? And free to do what?
Yeah, two different things also.Yeah.
And so actually stop and think, why?
Is it just 'cause I don't want you to tell me what to do?

(34:30):
Or do I have a real reason to befree?
Yeah, so and then the last one is legitimate authority.
So the idea is that this needs to be like an actual real
institute of government, not in other words, you know, not like
a, a terrorist group, a private militia.

(34:51):
That's probably just war. Now, how does that sit with you?
When I say private militia, I think I maybe the early days of
America. You might be thinking about that
a little. Bit well, I mean, every, every
country's ever fought for their own independence didn't have a
legitimate government in theory,but they but they formed one as
they were doing it. So there's been lots of, you
know, guerrilla warfare tactics over the years that that were

(35:15):
justifiable because, you know, there was done in defense of
their homeland of some sort. So like in our land now, I don't
want to go into this too far, sojust kind of track with me for a
little bit. But the Constitution is the
highest king in America. Actually, it's the people.
People, the ultimate authority in the land.
The Constitution gives them that.

(35:35):
No, the people in the Constitution give the government
authority. Well, the Constitution would be.
The Constitution, the people. The Constitution wasn't there
first. The people were there first.
But they signed it into power tobe over the people.
We the people to govern the States.
To govern the people. We, the people of the United
States. The constitution allows for

(35:57):
people to rise up against the government, correct?
So then you have 3. People gave themselves authority
to keep the government in. Check.
Well, I'm going to say there's three groups there, OK, And
people, Constitution and government, OK, I'm going to
divide it that way. I'm not.
I I just want to make this very simplistic idea real.
Quick. Either way, the government is
not the ultimate authority in our land.

(36:18):
Sure. Sure, calm down, there we go.
So the idea like with legitimateauthority, real government, not
least private militias is the idea.
So for it to be just war, you couldn't have.
You know, groups of people attacking.
I'm going to say two things here.
So, yeah, so you're you can't have just some mob rise up and

(36:39):
say this is righteous and overthrow, you know, whatever.
OK. However, we actually have the
wording in our constitution thatis, you know, accepted.
It's an official document, you know, that we are allowed to
rise up when the rightfully instituted government, we

(37:02):
believe they've gone too far andthey've done something wrong.
So that's an interesting kind ofplot twist to this.
Yeah. Because it's.
Which is. Literally how our country also
was founded. Yeah, that's right.
That was our that's why we declared independence was for
those same reasons. So it that that's an interesting
one to think through as well. And you know, I think it's I
think just, you know, not to hash out right now, but you

(37:24):
know, even to think, you know, I, I want to make it clear that
I love my nation. I love being a citizen here.
I don't want to be a citizen somewhere else.
I want, I like, I like. America 100.
Percent and so just with that foundation, but you know, I do
want to consider, you know, sometimes we celebrate certain
things. You know what, you know,

(37:44):
sometimes rebellion is just not good, you know, and and so there
can be a good just rebellion because you're rebelling against
evil, right? And so we have to be very
careful with that and kind of analyze history and don't just
go, well, we're just good. We're just right because this is
my people, this is my forefathers or something.

(38:06):
You know, we want to have a, a biblical foundation for these
things. And that's not what we're going
through today. We want to make sure that we are
being consistent with Scripture.We are honoring God, we're
giving glorify, you know, properworship and to him, we're
glorifying him properly through all of this.
And so that that's kind of the the foundation, the framework
that we're working in here. So there we go.

(38:27):
That's that's when is it going? When is going to war just just
cause, right intention, proportionality, last resort,
legitimate authority. You have those things.
Then the second question, which only has two criteria, how must
war be fought? OK, so that's another, another
ball of wax there. So this only has two things
really. And so the first one is about

(38:51):
discrimination, OK, the idea that you, you may not
deliberately keyword, OK, you may not deliberately target
civilians. You must aim your force at
legitimate military targets and intend keyword intend Collateral

(39:13):
damage does happen. Collateral damage we're.
Talking about intentions. And and and, yeah, and you
should not bear the brunt of collateral damage.
So but you intend to spare? Bear the guilt of collateral
damage. You intend to spare non
combatants as far as possible. Sure.
So not deliberately targeting civilians.
And you intend to spare the civilians?
Now how does this then they'll play into the wars in the in the

(39:38):
Bible. I mean the kill orders, women,
children, babies, animals, kill everything.
Right now we did kind of handle that and it's got good.
We have, we have handled that so.
Then I'll just real quick, I canjust.
See, I can just see someone like, well, that's not how they
fought the bio, right? Like they went to exterminate in
so many cases. There, there basically was no

(39:59):
innocent party there. We have to remember that that
the order was to drive them out.And there was clearly they all
knew about Yahweh. They knew about the power of
Yahweh or Jericho. The hearts melted within them
and things. Everybody knew about it.
They heard about the kings beingdefeated in things.
There is lots of warning. God had, you know, his own

(40:22):
ambassadors, so to speak, in theland, like Abraham, Isaac,
Jacob, and they all kept moving around and he had Melchizedek.
Part of the reason he had Israel's stay, what, 400 years
in Egypt was because the time ofthe Canaanites was not done yet.
He was giving them more and moretime.
Time to repent. Yep.
Yeah. And so there was.
So there were witnesses in the lands for centuries talk about

(40:43):
mercy. And then.
But. But instead of, I mean, they
just kept getting worse and worse and worse.
It just, it did not slow down atall.
The days of Melchizedek were long gone.
And even then there was some problems, big problems, you
know? Yeah, there.
Was a Sodom and Gomorrah at thattime.
Right, correct, correct. And so, so they, they came in to

(41:04):
drive them out. They only had 100% kill rate for
those that stood the ground against them.
And you know, sadly, they, they kept their children things with
them. And so they, they doomed their
own children really. But you know, hey, just to get
into a little bit like what would happen?
Those kids grow up that they're going to be your enemies.

(41:26):
And you know, even God says, hey, the, the, the people who
leave the land, you can. Leave that.
You can use that same argument today though.
I guess that's that's why I was going to get to.
Yeah, yeah, you could. I I I think there is a SO.
Why does the Why does the ethicsof a change?
I think there is a distinction between God directly saying you
go here and do this. Whereas if we just say I want to

(41:49):
expand my borders or if we say I'm.
Going to defend my borders. They really hurt.
Well, defending is completely different.
That's that's another issue all together.
Sure. But I mean either way, like I'm
not going to target the children.
But if you strap bombs as littlekids.
Guns with them, you know, like and then they're combining and
that's a whole other. Story that that'll happen
they'll you know they'll weaponize children.

(42:11):
Yeah they will. It's so sad and.
That's wrong and. It's one of those things where
you you have you have to take them out with the situation.
If anything else could be done, let's do it.
But yeah, there's just there's so many sad decisions that have
to be made. And I think that is just and
it's it's really you know who who gets that blame.

(42:32):
It's it's that that those peoplethat are weaponizing the
children, those are the ones that have the guilt anyways.
Get get off on a, you know, a pet pet peeve there.
But so so yeah, don't deliberately target civilians
and you should intend to spare non combatants.
Sure, OK, as far as possible. I think we can agree with that.

(42:54):
And we're saying as far as possible.
Yeah, because there is collateral damage, you know,
wrong place, wrong time. That happens in war, right?
And then the other, the other key point here with how must war
be fought? All right, proportionality.
Once again, you should not have a use of force.
That is clearly, I think that's kind of a keyword there, clearly

(43:17):
excessive relative to the actualmilitary objective.
OK, So what what goes back to cause and attention?
Like what are you going to war for?
What are you trying to accomplish?
And so if it's simply that there's this one bad leader and
this happens and that leadershipgroup, small cluster leadership

(43:38):
group, they're actually evil anddoing a lot of bad things.
And then you have a large civilian population that is in
disagreement with that leadership and they are actually
being persecuted. They're actually suffering
underneath this leadership. You go in to take out the
leadership, but then he goes, you know what, it'd be a whole
lot easier. Just a just a carpet bomb the

(44:00):
place, you know, well, OK, that's not just war.
That's that's disproportional tothe objective.
So that's what that that's that's what I'm talking about.
So you want to make sure that itis proportional.
Your use of force is proportional to the objective.
When you're weighing that out also, it's it's the the
potential loss of life of those on our side as well, right?

(44:22):
Yes, absolutely it is. And so you you have to make
those decisions based on defending your people as well
and protecting your people as well.
So sometimes it is easier to drop bombs than lose our people
in. And, well, that's why it's even
a thought to begin with. And so, yeah, you do.
You have to weigh those things, yes, so.

(44:45):
But we have like, you know, SEALteams.
Yeah, I know it'll go in and just, you know that.
The incursion teams that can go do some stuff and they do.
That's why it's beautiful to have special.
Forces, yeah. Yeah, which I'm always so
impressed with the ability. Using press and special.
Forces Green Berets and all that.
Oh my goodness. Anyways, we'll move on.

(45:06):
So I want to read Exodus scripture here, so I'll go
through just a few passages, 33 little passages to kind of show
how Jesus is a man of war. He is a he is The Ultimate
Warrior. OK.
Oh yes. OK, so Exodus 15 one through 18.

(45:29):
I know it's longer, but it's beautiful.
And so this is after Egypt army was defeated in the Red Sea.
Okay, so then Moses and the people of Israel sang this song
to the Lord, saying I will sing to the Lord for he has triumphed
gloriously. The horse and his rider he has
thrown into the sea. The Lord is my strength in my

(45:50):
song. He has become my salvation.
This is my God, and I will praise him, my father's God, and
I will exalt him. Here is verse 3.
The Lord is a man of war, says ESV.
The Lord is a man of war. The Lord is his name, of course.
That's that master, right? That domination OK, Pharaoh's

(46:10):
Chariots verse 4 Pharaoh's Chariots and his hosts he cast
into the sea, and his chosen officers were sunk in the Red
Sea. The floods covered them and they
went down to the depths like a stone.
Your right hand, O Lord, glorious in power.
Your right hand, O Lord, shatters the enemy.
In the greatness of your majesty, you overthrow your

(46:30):
adversaries. You send out your fury.
It consumes them like stubble atthe blast of your nostrils.
The waters piled up, of course. That's the idea of like, even
like that anger, you know, you flare the nostrils and stuff,
right? The floods stood up in a heap,
the deeps congealed in the heartof the sea.
The enemy said, I will pursue, Iwill overtake, I will divide the

(46:52):
spoil. My desire shall have its fill of
them. I will draw my sword.
My hand shall destroy them. What happened?
Verse 10? You blew with your wind.
The sea covered them. They sank like lead in the
mighty waters. Who is like you, O Lord among
the gods, Who is like you, majestic and holiness, awesome
and glorious deeds doing wonders.

(47:14):
You stretched out your right hand.
The earth swallowed them. You have led in your steadfast
love the people whom you have redeemed, the defending of the
innocents, protecting your people, that that's kind of
built in there too. You have guided them by your
strength to your holy abode. The peoples have heard, they
tremble. Pangs have seized.

(47:34):
The inhabitants of Felicia now are the chiefs of Edom dismayed,
trembling seizes the leaders of Moab and all the inhabitants of
Canaan have melted away. Terror and dread fall upon them.
Because the greatness of Your arm, they are still as a stone
till your people, O Lord, pass by, till the people pass by whom

(47:57):
You have purchased, You will bring them in and plant them on
Your own mountain, the place, O Lord, which you have made for
your abode, the sanctuary, O Lord, which your hands have
established. That ends with this.
And then a little section here. The Lord will reign forever and
ever. Then now here's Psalm 2.
I love Psalm 2. Why do the nation's rage in the

(48:20):
people's plot? In vain the kings of the earth
set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together against
the Lord and against his anointed.
So the father and the sons, yes,saying, Let us burst their bonds
apart and castaway their cords from us.
What do they want? They wanted freedom.

(48:41):
From God. Yes.
So it's not good freedom this time, Yeah.
Freedom. 'S good since then he will speak
to them in his wrath and terrifythem in his fury, saying, As for
me, this is the Father speaking.I have set my King Jesus on Zion
in Jerusalem, my holy hill. I will tell of the decree.

(49:01):
The Lord said to me, you are my son today I have begotten you
ask of me, and I will make the nation's your heritage in the
ends of the earth your possession.
So there's a domination and a conquering over the entire
earth. We see that fulfilled much
later. You shall break them with a rod
of iron and dash them in pieces like a Potter's vessel.

(49:22):
So definitely use of force here,use of force now.
Therefore, O kings, be wise. Be warned, O rulers of the
earth. Serve the Lord with fear and
rejoice with trembling. Kiss the sun, lest he be angry,
and you perish in the way, for his wrath is quickly kindled.

(49:44):
Blessed are all who take refuge in Him.
I love Psalm 2. It sounds like a holy war.
Well, not so much, because it's not.
It's not trying to spread Christianity.
This is just the conquering the enemies that have stood against.
Jesus. Yeah, really?
Interesting. I was making a joke.
Well, but I had it cleared up. All right, all right, fair

(50:04):
enough. One last one, one last passage,
because these are awesome. Revelation 1911 through 21.
Yeah. Yeah.
So I kind of got like 3 pieces of the Bible here, you know?
Revelation 1911 through 21. Then I saw heaven opened.
Here comes the big second comingbattle.
I saw heaven opened and behold, a White Horse, the one sitting

(50:28):
on it called faithful and true. And in righteousness he judges
and makes war. So there is this idea of a
righteous war, you know. Now there could be an argument
here that only Jesus has the right to to do a righteous war.
You could say that what I didn'tdo I just.
Don't I just want to give creditto that?
That's an argument, yeah, that that many will say.

(50:49):
Well, if they listen to the first part of the series, I gave
a stirring pacifist argument. Yeah.
So yeah, we. But.
But you know, here, even if you go through every passage that
has to do with war, which is tons, a lot of tons, yeah, you
you will actually be begin to see a lot of this these these

(51:11):
elements of just war that are there.
But there is the idea that thereis this the justice and
righteousness that is in war, not all war, but it but it's
there necessary evil, if you will.
You know, if if you understand the phrase not saying it's
actually evil to do it. OK, all right, so then this is

(51:31):
really cool here. Let's go.
Let's go to so it's verse 12. Now his eyes are like a flame of
fire and on his head are many diadems and he has a name
written that no one knows but himself like this.
He is clothed in a robe dipped in blood, and the name by which
he is called is the Word of God.In the armies of heaven, arrayed

(51:52):
in fine linen, white and pure, were following him on white
horses. From his mouth comes a sharp
sword, with which is strike downthe nations, and he will rule
them with a rod of iron. That rule there is Shepherd.
He will tread the winepress of the fury of the wrath of God the
Almighty on his robe and on his thigh.

(52:12):
He has a name written, King of Kings and Lord of Lords, that
trading that winepress the fury,the wrath of God the Almighty.
It's that you know you're stomping on his grapes and
stuff. You know you're just stomping.
And in this course, the grape kind of looks like blood, right?
He's just squirting up so. He doesn't sound pleasant.
It's a it's a bloody picture on purpose.

(52:33):
Yeah. Then verse 17.
Then I saw an Angel standing in the sun, and with a loud voice
he called to all the birds that fly directly overhead.
Let's get an idea of the carnagehere.
Come, gather for the great supper of God to eat the flesh
of kings, the flesh of captains,the flesh of mighty men, the

(52:54):
flesh of horses and their riders, and the flesh of all
men, both free and slave, both small and great.
And I saw the beast. And so that's, you know, the
figures in Revelation. There I saw the beast and the
kings of the earth with their armies gathered to make war
against him, who was sitting on his on the horse and against his
army. That's a bad idea by the.
Way it is a very bad idea and the beast was captured and with

(53:15):
it the false prophet who in its presence had done the signs by
which he deceived those would receive the mark of the beast
and those who worshipped his image.
These two this is unlike anybodyelse the special thing here
these two were thrown alive intothe lake of fire that burns with
sulfur. I don't know exactly what that
means, but that's a bad deal. They.

(53:36):
Didn't die yet. In the last verse here in the.
Rest. Yeah, yeah, yeah.
It's doesn't sound good. No, it sounds bad.
So what happens to the rest of them?
Verse 21 And the rest were slainby the sword that came from the
mouth of him who was sitting on the horse.
He spoke a word and all the birds were gorged with their
flesh. Yikes.

(53:57):
So we have this. Gorgeous.
Overeaten. Yeah, I know.
Trust me. I know what gorge means.
That's a fat guy at a buffet. So you'll hear we, we definitely
see throughout Scripture that, you know, Jesus not only
approves of certain wars, He wages them himself at times and

(54:18):
there is a justice in a righteousness in it.
It's, it's, it's there's potential for war to have those
elements. I think what it comes down to
really is, you know, the individuals participating, are
they, are they sitting in their hearts as they do these things?
You know, there's the individualintentions, the individual

(54:39):
reasoning for it all that often is where there is failure.
You know, even with the the, thenations that God raised up to
judge even Israel and Judah and things, they did so in a sinful
way typically. Yeah.
And so they then they were. Like they were punished for for.
For what? They were judged, Yeah.

(54:59):
Right, right. And So what?
So let's get to the final piece here.
OK. What about nuclear weapons?
The big boom. As I figured out, we got to
cover this. We got to cover.
There's so much stuff to talk about, so really.
Well, it's only it's only they've only really been used
once, like, you know. Two cities, but.

(55:21):
Yeah, but like, you know. In actual, you know, Wartime 1.
Time, yeah. As far as I understand it, maybe
there was something else, but yeah, as far as I understand.
Maybe the me I mean smaller stuff has been done, but yeah.
So yeah, there was a. Different rate and was that
justifiable? OK, let's, let's, we're kind of
jumping ahead a little bit. So let's go back to our
principles, OK? Discrimination, how?

(55:45):
How should war be done, right? Remember discrimination and
proportionality. So you may not deliberately
target civilians. You must aim your force at
legitimate military targets and intend to spare non combatants
as far as possible. And then no use of force that is
clearly excessive relative to the military objective.

(56:08):
All right, with those two key criteria established, OK, we
think of nuclear weapons now, right now I'm, I'm imagining
the, the, the like atom bomb level 'cause there are like
ranges of size, OK? So just think of like atom bomb,
OK? By nature, really they are

(56:31):
indiscriminate and disproportionate.
I mean, typically speaking, right?
Sure. Yeah.
Can there be a situation, though, where it is
proportionate? They're obviously always going
to be indiscriminate. Yeah, always.
By that alone, does that mean weshould never use nuclear

(56:53):
warfare? Never is a long time.
Because it, this would be the just war position, sure.
And so it'd be like it, this is where I think people tend to
like, they can be with me. And then now they're going to

(57:13):
take like a, a realism view. So it's like, yeah, I'm just war
up until, you know, now I think I'm going to be more realism.
War happens, casualties happen. This is the nature of it.
Everybody has nukes. We're going to have nukes too,
you know? I think, I think in, in the, in
the case of the nukes, which, you know, I mean, we'll just

(57:35):
talk about the ones we dropped on Japan because that's really
the only ones I know about, right?
Yeah, right. It ended the war, an ongoing war
that would not end. And it ended it.
So I mean, that's, that was a justification for it.
Basically, we're going to try this, hope it ends the war and
and it did. I'm sure there's more details

(57:58):
into it than that, but that's but that's what's in our history
books, right? And there was warnings given.
There was like the old, like, you know, leaflets dropped
saying, yeah, you, you, you better get out of the city.
You may you might want to. You may want to evacuate.
Now the the problem is, is what did they actually understand?
Because you're like, your entirecity's going to vaporize, you
know, I'm not sure the wording was, but how can you comprehend

(58:20):
that at that time, especially like now we can look back and
go, that's what it did. And so when someone talks about
a nuke, we suddenly have all this information popular in our
heads. But what information do they
have? That's one of the
considerations, things like that.
So was it a fair warning? I mean, maybe the best.
I can do, I have no idea. But then you, but then you you

(58:42):
weighed into, OK, how many otherlives were saved because the war
stopped, which was a lot, right.And then and that was a
justification for it. And I'm not necessarily opposed
to that justification. Of course, we're on the winning
side, which always excuse, you know, always excuse it.
So like, I also realize that as well.
It's hard to say. Yeah, yeah.

(59:03):
But I can certainly say, you know, I would not be one who
advocates for a nuclear war today.
Sure. What do I say?
It never should have happened. I mean, there may be a scenario
where it's necessary for a, a just cause.
But I mean, yeah. I mean, I think most people on
board with. Yeah, we'd prefer that not to
take place. Yeah.

(59:25):
And. I.
Just about every situation, you know I.
I think it's like the, the, the part that doesn't hold up 'cause
I think it is, I think there's agood argument to be made whether
someone agrees or not. I think it's a good argument to
be made to say it's, it is proportional.
There is a, there's a level of evil there, but the good that
came out of it as far as ending a World War, I mean, we're

(59:50):
talking about how many lives getlost on the scale of nations
across the globe. You know that that's a pretty
big deal. Then discriminate part that's
tougher doesn't really pass passthe muster.
There doesn't pass. Although, you know, if you if
you gave the warning, you know, that's also hard to do because a

(01:00:10):
bombing attack is less effectiveif you give a warning, right?
Like also you can get shot down,especially in today's world.
Back then it was a little different.
You know, we were able to sneak those planes over there.
And it's kind of hard to escape that area.
You know, that's like, 'cause all the fallout you think about,
you know, nuclear warfare is a little bit different than
normal. And.

(01:00:31):
Of course, we don't have necessarily all the information
on the the radiation probably. We did not know, correct?
Yeah. Yeah.
And there's probably, you know, suspicions of it, but we, we, we
know a lot more about radiation problems today than we did then.
Yeah, there was a lot of bad information in the beginning of
that. Yeah.
You'll see like, you know, videoof people walking towards the

(01:00:53):
nuclear blast and they're testing it.
Yeah. There's no no clue about how
actually bad that, you know, thewhole thing is.
Of course, if you. Hide it inside of refrigerator.
I hear you're safe. This is how close you are to the
blast. Hey, I watched that Indiana
Jones movies. And then breathing the air

(01:01:13):
afterwards. Against other refrigerators
there like a mile. Oh wow.
Yeah, you know I haven't. Seen that in that.
Yeah, some documentary. Indiana Jones, you said yeah,
yeah. OK.
All right. OK.
So, so it's it becomes a little bit hairy, was what I'm saying.
So let let me introduce you to another idea because because

(01:01:35):
there could be, you know, the idea is like, should anyone ever
even have them? Is it unethical to even have it?
Like you can make a threat. Maybe your threats is what's
keeping you safe. But I mean, are you never going
to actually use them? Yeah, I mean, that's just a such

(01:01:56):
a theoretical thing 'cause once once you have it, you can't
really not have them anymore, right?
Correct. It's so crazy.
You're already at that point, and so just as long as your
nation has the most, you should be good.
I mean that's really the theory that you know, that's the only
way to be safe and then you justhope that everybody is semi

(01:02:17):
reasonable. We don't just have a full blown
everybody hit the button at onceand just destroy the whole world
all at the same time. You just hope that doesn't
happen. Well, even you think about the
possibility of a just peace, OK,Is that is that endangered?
Because if you consider, you know, a a large nuclear exchange

(01:02:41):
could destroy infrastructure, you know, needed for any decent
post war life. OK, so like you're, you're
actually creating problems. So long term, it's, you know,
many generations afterwards are affected by this whole thing and
even, you know, creating long lasting bitterness, desire for
revenge, you know, things like that.

(01:03:03):
I, I just think those have to beconsidered.
You know, a lot of this is a thinking exercise here.
We're not actually here to, you know, solve all the world the
issues. The virtues of nuclear war.
So this is exactly what you are to do, all you nations.
OK, we're not there yet, but. No, no, no.
No, but yeah, there's. This just how, what do you think

(01:03:24):
the Bible says about this? Is is talk through this?
And that's really what this is all about.
There's going to be massive refugee crisis, there's going to
be famine, you know, potentiallya full.
On nuclear war would be bad likethey may not be refugees.
Well, and there's there's there's the idea like like we if

(01:03:45):
everybody shot off their nukes kind of thing.
We all have like anti nuke capabilities, but The thing is,
is you're exploding them in the air.
Well, you're still, it's not like, oh, we dodged that bullet.
Well, partially. Yes, you know, yes, you did,
but. But then here comes the you
know, the aftershock. If you have, if you have the,

(01:04:06):
the radiation portion of it, thefallout and all that stuff, that
would be bad. Oh yeah, and all that, you know,
and I'm not a scientist. I, you know, I'm out of my
element knowing what would actually happen.
But I'd read the books and watchthe movies and and it's not
good, so. Yeah, there's, I mean, there's
even like the small tactical, you know, more tactical nuclear

(01:04:29):
little little guys. But that's, you know, there's
still some lingering effects arestill, you know, you see at the
way outs what what are we actually doing?
Where is it going? Who's it affecting?
But but I want to make clear because sometimes we we handle
things like this, where we are in this very sanitized
environment, We don't have the stress of making a decision.

(01:04:52):
We can look back at now decades of data and we can say, OK,
well, this is clearly, you know,they didn't have that
convenience and that and that's always true.
Going forward in time is there'sgoing to be the stress of a
situation. You have like 5 seconds to make
a decision sometimes or you knowat best a few days you know if

(01:05:14):
you guys are your. Decisions have consequences all
the time and, and, and there there's a big consequence.
The decision that to to drop 2 nuclear bombs, that's a big
decision. Right.
Yeah, yeah. And you're weighing it.
With, you know, yeah, this is going to cause all kinds of
collateral damage, but it's alsogoing to end the war.

(01:05:35):
How much more collateral damage is going to be caused if we
continue the war, you know, and those are the decisions being
made. And yeah, I mean, that's not to
be made lightly, obviously. I mean, you hope that if it's
taken through the ethics of thatand at some point, you know, you
just have to trust that you leaders are right.
Like and also keep in mind they have more information than you

(01:05:58):
do. So a lot of our leaders make
decisions and we're like, I don't know if I'd do that.
Well, they also know more than you do, right?
So there's more information it plays into than what you know
comes out on the news, you know,So you can't necessarily sit in
judgement on what others have decided necessarily.

(01:06:19):
And and also because quick commercial.
You know all this stuff. Quick commercial for being
active in your, your local politics and beyond.
You know, voting is an importantprivilege that we have.
And so we, we elect leaders and then we submit to them.
You know, as a general rule, of course there's can be exceptions

(01:06:41):
if it's evil or something, you know, necessarily like like
obviously inherently evil. Yeah, but you know, some way.
Yeah, but just it's a general. Rule or it goes against in our
in our case, it goes against Constitution.
Then you don't. Yeah, you know.
I think there's reason to. Obey certain things according to
the Constitution. Now can you someone search
trouble with that? And that's a whole other
conversation, but. Well, let, let me, let me

(01:07:03):
introduce you something else then.
I want to keep it moving here. Yeah.
So there's something called the the the acronym is Mad, MAD,
Mad, Mutual Assured Destruction.Oh, that sounds fantastic.
So, so the the idea with this isthat you have nuclear weapons as
deterrence. Yeah, you know, it keeps people

(01:07:26):
from shooting. At us shooting at you?
Yeah, exactly. If we're going to die, so are
you. We have is that vengeance?
My nukes are pointed at you and your nukes are pointed at mine.
And so someone that would be a proponent of this would say this
is a good thing because it basically assures that you'll
never use them. Yeah, I mean, that's, that's the
hope behind it, right? I mean, that's the idea.

(01:07:46):
That's the idea. I I think it's not that simple.
But that's nothing. Nothing's ever as simple as
that. But yeah.
So is it a question for you? Is it morally permissible to
threaten an unjust action you believe you must never actually
commit? So we're talking about like a
large scale, you know, like Russia has bomb that that have a

(01:08:09):
40 mile blast radius, 40 square mile blast radius with all the
fallout and everything just. Sounds like a good negotiating
tactic. So you know, but like can you
if, if you believe, if you're ina position where you'd believe
it's not just to nuke somebody the.
Key is, do they believe that? Do they believe that you believe

(01:08:30):
that? But but just for you, like if
you were to believe that you youshould never actually launch
this thing, is it morally permissible to threaten it Do?
You believe that you should never launch it?
Does that answer really the question?
Right. Well, yeah, Well, yeah, if you,
if you're in a position where soif you're a true just war

(01:08:52):
tradition person, OK, then obviously this is indiscriminate
killing. It's obviously you have a large
number of civilians, so. You can, you don't take, you
don't take all five of your things in the in the in
consideration and say, OK, 305 that's good.
You win. No, they they are supposed to

(01:09:14):
take it as 100% altogether. There is a there is a hierarchy
in some of these, right? You know we can play with it.
I'm using the actual like this. This is the position.
If you didn't have the whole position, you but I.
Think because I think, you know,the the greater good thing
outweighs some of the other onesultimately.

(01:09:39):
Yes, I, I'm with you, I'm with you that I believe that the
proportionate part of it is actually probably the, the key,
the, the biggest factor, the biggest factor, because if, if
it does produce more good ultimately, if you know that, if

(01:10:01):
you really believe that, then doit now.
I I don't mean the end justifiesthe means there.
There's a fine line there. There.
There's definitely a line there.That's I don't mean that,
because what that means is morality goes completely out the
window. I think, I think you're, you're,
you're weighing the, you know, on the collateral damage sense

(01:10:23):
would, would more collateral damage happen if you continue on
in this path, But this action here would stop that.
Yes, it causes collateral damage, but ultimately less.
And those are the things you're you're weighing when making that
decision. That doesn't make it an easy
decision or decision to take lightly.
But to say, yeah, you would never do it would be a tough

(01:10:47):
stance to take. Now to your question, if you
believe you shouldn't do it because it's not, it can't fit
the just test. The arguments really doesn't fit
the just test. But you say you believe it
doesn't. Should you even threaten it or
not? Because that's almost like
you're lying lines and sin. It's kind of deceptive.

(01:11:11):
It's also a really bad thing if you say I'm going to do this.
But then, but then you get in the whole ethics of deceiving
other nations and spies and all that stuff.
Oh yeah, and I do want to cover that one day, actually.
And that and that's a whole another conversation.
But I think you fit in that category, right, Where like, you
know what I mean it when it comes to like, yeah, I'm, I'm

(01:11:34):
going to say I'm going to shoot these, although I never would
because you're trying to deceivethem and think that you're going
to shoot them when you're not. I think you're in.
You're in that category now. Then the argument then is, is,
is that wrong to lie and deceive?
Yes, I I don't think all is fairin war.
I think that you still have yoursame moral code, but it is, it

(01:11:55):
is the idea. I think proportionality is, is
king and I'm willing to fudge onit really.
So it's like, you know, so there's, there is people that
say AI have a just war view, butthey, they, they're willing to
say, but not all key considerations, all key factors
are equal. And I'm open to that.

(01:12:17):
Now back to vengeance though. Vengeance not being a just
'cause if we're shooting them just to destroy the other nation
also, is that just vengeance andtherefore not just?
Right. So that I was actually going to
mention that. So I'm glad you did.
So the idea is like, was that punishment?
They launched nuclear weapons atus.
So we launched them back. So then so.

(01:12:39):
So like they cross paths in there and that's basically the
idea, right? Because you're going a long ways
and you know, you got you got time before they hit.
So we're shooting ours too, right?
That's the idea. Right, right, So so.
We may not win, but neither are you.
I I think what that comes down to is causing attention.
So, So what, what causes there? We are under attack.

(01:13:04):
Now The thing is, is shooting atthem doesn't stop that attack
that that attack. That's another issue.
No, but we do have things that stop those attacks as well.
So the intention of it though, is the intention that they are
evil. They're they're going to do this
to other nations. Probably.
And so we want to prevent this from happening to other nations.

(01:13:25):
So I think that's we'll. Say anything to justify it.
Well, but I really, I really mean it.
I really mean it. Yeah.
Yeah. Because, because if the
intention is you're going to burn with us and that's it,
well, that's not so noble. That's not as noble.
It makes sense. It's a human, natural, human
response. But that's what, when you hear
mutually assured destruction, that's what you think.

(01:13:46):
Because that's like, OK. You guys stay safe.
And honestly, that very well could be a real reason why we
haven't had nuclear warfare is because everybody's, you know,
not everybody, but you know whatI mean, A whole bunch of nations
have nuclear weapons. They're all pointed at each
other. And so no one's interested in

(01:14:07):
having that mess. Nobody's interested in doing
that. And so, yeah, we'll see.
And then there's there's other things my mind goes to with with
how that could go wrong, but let's move on.
OK, OK, so here's here's OK, So let me let me get to maybe how
about some scenarios. Let's do some some what if

(01:14:29):
deals, OK. And then I think, I think maybe
we maybe we'll close with that. Some what ifs OK, you're trying.
To. Try to make me think through.
Yeah, there's, there's lots of things.
OK, OK, OK. So you have a a single small
tactical nuke on an isolated military target.

(01:14:53):
OK, OK, imagine enemy is about to launch a massive biological
strike that would kill millions.A single low yield nuclear
strike on a hardened bunker in an unpopulated area could stop
it. No civilians are in range.

(01:15:13):
OK, now hold on. OK, so here's here's the
considerations we have to have. All right, so I think that we're
kind of starting out a little easier maybe here.
OK, but discrimination, right? So are non combatants really
safe? Is Fallout contained?

(01:15:35):
OK, so you see where I'm going with this.
So it's like there's there's maybe you know, think through
the implicate like like what arethe consequences of me doing
this? I can present a case that seems
safe, but is it really safe? Is it actually being
discriminate? Just just targeting military?
OK, So what about and I'll, I'lllet you go wild here in a little

(01:16:00):
while, but proportionality, OK. Does preventing millions of
deaths justify using a weapon with nuclear side effects?
Yes. OK 'cause the nuclear side
effects potentially could cause problems for even more people
to. Have any other options in this
case? Well, based.

(01:16:22):
On the scenario you're painted, there weren't other.
There's not much information here.
OK, By the way, I had if you hadGPT come up with these
scenarios, sure if. You if you had, if you had a
bomb that was non nuclear and you could do the same effect,
sure you would do that. But we're already assuming that
that's not the case. This is the only way and so
therefore yes. So.

(01:16:43):
The answer is yes. So here's here.
What about this? When we use nuclear warfare,
there's a real danger of escalation.
Yep. OK, so I do this.
Well, they're going to do something bigger.
And so then we're going to do something bigger to to, to have.
And then it just keeps going. And of course, it encourages the

(01:17:08):
technology to even go faster, you know, more, more, more
quickly. There we go more quickly.
We will be developing bigger batter stuff to drop on
everybody. And so it's like, man, we don't
want to start that ball rolling down the hill.
It's already moving. But why accelerate it like that

(01:17:33):
and make people really be focusing on it when they could?
Be focused on things you would keep in consideration.
OK, you have to have a good PR team.
OK, here we go. So now I'm going to have you do
a little more your interact a little bit more, OK?
OK, so that was like that was like to kind of get us an idea.
All right, so here we have a suppose your country and

(01:17:53):
everybody think about this, evenif you're from a different
country. OK, suppose your country was
struck first by a nuclear attack.
That'd be a bummer. You can retaliate.
OK. All right, what are the
questions you should be asking? Who attacked me?
I mean, that should be #1 right?You don't want to attack the

(01:18:14):
wrong country. That's true, yeah.
Yeah, that question one, it was a simple thing, but yeah, you're
right. You're right.
That's if you mess that one up, yeah, that'd be really bad.
Then your next question is what it was the best response.
So like just cause is the idea right?
Yeah, you have a just cause. If your nation's attacked, you

(01:18:37):
have a you have a just cause to defend yourself.
What's the best way to defend yourself is one of the questions
anybody asked and. And would that actually and what
is the most effective? Way to defend yourself would be
another question to ask. Yeah, it's like what?
What would it accomplish? Like what good is going to come
out of? This what is the best defense?

(01:18:57):
Shooting nukes back or a ground attack or you know what is I
mean, you got to ask that question.
What is our best defense? Do we just retaliate in kind or
is there a better way or? Do we go?
Harder shooting. Shooting nukes back is not
necessarily the the correct answer and maybe the correct
answer, but still respect to theother thing.

(01:19:19):
The the theory is if everybody'sgot them, nobody shoots them.
I mean, that's what everybody hopes, right?
Now in this scenario, we we get hit, we're actually hit.
And if in that scenario, we probably would've already shot
them, like in our case, other countries probably would do the
same thing. If you're shooting at me and I
know you're shooting at me, yes,we're probably shooting them
back. Sure, sure.

(01:19:40):
And of course, it would always be a situation where, you know,
like someone could actually comein here.
I mean, it would be difficult, but it's not within the realm of
impossibility that they could actually craft, you know, like,
even like a, a, another government's group infiltrates
the country, not too hard to do.And then here you gather
materials illegally, of course, and secretly craft a nuclear

(01:20:02):
weapon, set it off. So it's already, it's not like
it's launching in the sky. You know, it's already here.
So, so there, there you don't have a thing where it's like,
oh, we're alerted to it. Yeah, we'll shoot them off and
she goes boom. It's happened.
Oh, that. Is then you're.
Then you're back to who did it. Because who didn't even know?
Yeah. So just 'cause you find out who
did it, it's the the country that you really don't like, you

(01:20:24):
know, and you name it and. It's all the countries.
Retaliation, Well, you know how people are retaliation.
You know, I think we have to like not everyone would agree
with this, but I think we have to agree that retaliation in
itself is not enough. Like that's not a, that's not a
just cause just to retaliate. Correct.
Like you with me on that one. Yeah, I mean, it'll just, there

(01:20:46):
has to be. Just go kill other people.
There has to be. That's not the the solution to
the problem. There has to be good to come out
of it like the cause, like you have to be foreseeing.
Well and and defending yourself is a good cause but all.
Right. So what's another question that
needs to be asked here? What do you think?
Who did it again, why did they do it, and how do we and how do

(01:21:07):
we get them back? You know, all right, what about
so we've already we've, I'll give you this one because you've
already kind of talked about it a little bit so that the
intention. So cause and intention are two
different things, but you know the intention there.
I think the big question should be, are we acting to restore
justice? Sure.

(01:21:28):
Because that's that's what it's all about, justice and peace,
you know, So what will actually give peace for the parties
involved? What actually brings justice for
the parties involved? What's the best way to do that?
And so that has to be some questions going on in this
process. Yeah, all those questions.

(01:21:50):
Yeah. So in other words, this is just
a thinking exercise like everything else.
And so people can go back and think about it and there's
situations in the course proportionality,
proportionality, right. So we'll when whenever we
retaliate to this country, will it actually prevent further
aggression or will it only add more distraction without any

(01:22:15):
actual clear game? Sure.
So we got to think through that one.
You know, yeah. Are you just attacking random
cities? Are you attacking military
installation or whatever? Yes, yes, discriminate as, as,
as much as possible for, you know, like we said, there's,
there's several factors involvedin some, some end up taking

(01:22:36):
over. So yeah, a lot of people don't
go back to the, the whole this view and they'll, they'll come
back to a very hard stance on ifat all we know that civilians
will die or get hurt by it, We we cannot do it.
And so that's where I kind of break away.
I'd kind of break away on that one.

(01:22:57):
Yeah, because you're not defending yourself.
Then they'll keep attacking, right?
In theory. And so this brings justice.
So at at some point you have to.And peace.
Defend your innocent people. I believe you have to, yes.

(01:23:17):
Yeah. So you can't just say, Oh no, I
can't hurt those innocent people.
So then our innocent people justkeep dying and keep dying and
keep dying and. And that's certainly to play
into the decision, right? Because obviously we don't want
to hurt any innocent people. Yeah.
But me defending my innocent people is more important, yes.
I think you're. This is where I'm at.
I think you're being indiscriminate if you keep

(01:23:38):
letting your own innocent civilians die, you know, like
that, you have to that you have to think of it both ways.
They're very, very important. OK, interesting stuff.
So we have to think through these things I think as we go
forward, especially because and that and that, you know, even

(01:23:58):
the the younger people that are listening, you know, let's say
you're high school, college age around there. 18 to 22 year old
is our biggest demographic on. Well, that's kind of the reason
I missed it. Yeah, Go go, team.
Yeah, Gen. Z all the way.
Hey, we connect with Gen. Z.
Look at that. Yeah, look at that.
Amazing. We're not that old.
Then it's. Like middle-aged white fat guys

(01:24:20):
with. Bald heads, yeah.
Yeah. Glasses and beards, yeah.
OK. And very steadily as polos.
I don't know how many times people have accused me of being
your brother so. I I don't know why.
Yeah, totally different head shape.
What's funny is if you actually saw My Brother Is.
I've met your brother. Nothing he doesn't look like
either. Either of us in any possible.

(01:24:41):
Way he's got he's got a lot of more good things going on for
him look like hair and OK I hopehe's listening to this one all
right anyways, yeah, there's other things I've kind of had
but I think we're good. I think we're good and it just
helps us to think through these things as I think a lot of
people they take positions on war without really thinking

(01:25:03):
through all the factors without really thinking through the
details. It's just either I like it or I
hate it and there's you know, what's your reasoning?
War kills or, you know, they deserve it.
That's really kind of the end ofit.
And there's more to the conversation.
So much more to it. And that's the whole point of
this. Regardless of your view, make

(01:25:24):
your view biblical and and just think through all the different
ethics of it. I want to close with this just a
book recommendation. I already mentioned it before
because I am so impressed with it and I want to try why.
Don't you hold it up so we all see the cover.
Oh yeah, yeah, well, I have to read off it too, so.
Yeah. So Ethics of War, A Short
Companion by Paul D Miller. I can't see my own.

(01:25:47):
Is that in? Shot.
We got it right there. Ethics of war.
All right, so that's the that's the one I recommend.
And it's it's it's helped me through thinking through some of
these things and really great, really great book there.
All right, anyways. Good talk about wraps her up.
So this series is over and come join us for our next one.

(01:26:07):
Yeah, looking forward to seeing you next.

All Episodes

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

Hey Jonas!

Crime Junkie

Betrayal Weekly

.css-15opob5{left:0;position:absolute;top:0.8rem;} All Episodes

.css-14f5ked{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:2;overflow:hidden;}Is War Good?!?!?!? Part 3 I BBB 61 FULL EPISODE

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

.css-r6mb8g{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:1;overflow:hidden;}Hey Jonas!

Crime Junkie

Betrayal Weekly

All Episodes

Is War Good?!?!?!? Part 3 I BBB 61 FULL EPISODE

Hey Jonas!