The division between just-war and pacifism has made me think for a while.  And I still don't know where I stand.  It seems like each side has certain aspects that I agree with and others that I don't.  In David's article A Practical Christian Pacifism, he states, "Pacifism is surrender.  The pacifist viewpoint is appealing in principle, but in practice it means surrendering to the aggressor.  Capitulation to the forces of evil cannot be moral."  As appealing and truthful as this may be to many, it isn't how Jesus would feel.  According to the Gospel writers, Jesus said we must love our enemies and return good for evil.  There is nothing loving or good about war.  So this leads me to question why there is a division among Christians when it states clearly in the bible how Jesus would feel about this issue.  But then again, like Rabbi Flip said, not everything in the bible/ tanak should be taken literally.  That can also be controversial to Christians and people of other religion.  It seems to me that you can go on and on about different aspects, morales, and ideas of a certain religion, but in the end there will always be conflict.  There will always be somebody saying, "No, that isn't right."  I guess I'm just bothered with everybody assuming that what they believe in is right.  Can we sit back as a country and let another country drop bombs and kill innocent people? Of course not.  But according to the bible, that is what we should do.  How would a pacifist respond to that? And at the same time, how does a just-war advocate validate killing innocent people for oil in Iraq.  Oil is not a reason to go to war.  How would a just-war advocate respond to that?  It seems to me to be a never ending cycle and I still don't know where I stand.  No, we can't sit back and watch our country be attacked.  If action is going to be taken, it must be done the right way and I think the "right way" means having a legitimate plan for success that doesn't involve any other countries, any civilians, any side issues the countries may have, it shouldn't take years to accomplish, the government shouldn't hide anything from the public, and the two opposing sides who want to fight should come face to face like they did in the old days.  The problem is though, this will never happen...so what good is just-war?  I think David is right when he states that both sides, pacifist and just-war advocates, should be faced "squarely an debated vigorously in the churches, and pacifists and non-pacifists can learn much from each other in this debate."  I don't believe that there is a right or wrong answer, but in time I hope that both sides could come to a compromise so that this issue can be resolved and people could get back to the real intentions of what it means to be a Christian