This topic could have been 'Theory of a Just War'. But plenty has been written about this, and I provide 2 links for the readers information and background, before seeking to tackle a specifically 'Christian' understanding of War.

http://www.kencollins.com/why-13.htm
The principles elucidated in the above link, are also echoed in this speech by Former President Jimmy Carter
http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0309-02.htm

PLEASE read those prior to going through this post.

SCRIPTURAL BASIS.

Romans 13:1-5 refers in context to a contemporary pagan emperor, but it is clearly applied for all time to all emperors. (please read)
The phrase "all authority is instituted by God" implies clearly that it MAY have been established by revolution, assassination, coup or invasion.

A question arises, as to whether this teaching contradicts Jesus words to 'do not resist an evil person'. My present understanding is that this should be understood in terms of interpersonal relationships, within a community, and there is also the need to CULTURALLY understand the way Jesus spoke in the Sermon on the Mount.
He said "if your eye sins against you, GOUGE it out". That allows 2 sins. Clearly, his method of speaking, was not intended to be taken literally as WE from our cultural perspective would do.

PRINCIPLES.
1/ War is a legitimate tool of State as per the following:
2/ War is not to extend territory or guarantee resources.
3/ War is to defend justice and freedom.
4/ War is to deter evildoers.
5/ War is never to produce converts.

BOAZ_David,

I would like to comment.

I did not delve into the theory of ‘Just War’, in my 2005 epic sagas. I felt both that it was unnecessary, and after the fact. We might now say that it is -in any case- an oxymoron.

However, I have with me Kagan & Kagan ‘While America Sleeps’, 2000. From which I shall obligingly try to rationalise some points upon this thread.

To begin, an Eye for an Eye and all that, is perhaps cloak and dagger stuff. But the great game presents marvellous opportunities for intellectualism, much of which should not either be entertained nor ignored. A great challenge: to Man, and of God. And in that famous Revelation, Oh Mystery … Babylon … and (again) all that.

Kagan found rhythm to be important, indeed analogous to their historical correlation between War and Peace. They point to a catalogue of half measures which had/have landed the US in a predicament. As what befell Britain in the early decades of last century, so America stands at the brink today, by the power of 1, whereas earlier the threat was two-fold, in Kagans analogue. With one threat dealt with, there is but one pending, and one due, on or about 2011.

Cont:

Other states have learned from Gulf War 1 that: ‘They have not learned that America is willing to summon the force needed to defeat aggression, that the development of [WMD] and the means to deliver them will not be tolerated.’ In keeping with US historical precedent over the past hundred or more years ‘The message America has sent out to the aggressors and oppressors of the world has been that their depredations run only a limited risk’ (p428) in the larger scheme of things. Consequently, the US is faced with an economic quandary at the complex.

Interestingly, the analogue foresaw a communist resurgence of some sort at the turn of the century. Most of what Kagan presented has been turned around, but some elemental warning is still there. China was one. Things took place despite or in spite of what Clinton might have done, and regardless of what Carter might envisage: America the reserved, is a postulation. But Carter and Kagan are congruent.

Which brings me to conclude with Daniel 2:42-44.

Hi Gadget, I read the Daniel reference, yes, interesting.

Regarding my thread title, I think there is an oxymoron in the first part "Christian + State" is actually not a Biblical concept because it is suggestive of Theocracy. My intention is, a State which is predominantly Christian in cultural flavor, rather than a state where Christianity is the 'official' religion.

What I'm seeking to do, is grapple with the dilemna of such a state, in the light of military threat, and the scriptural position.

I certainly value any additional insights of an agreeable or disagreeable nature. It all adds to the mix :)
Cheers.

Is this a case for zero Muslim immigration ? Is this a declaration of war by Islam on Christianity ?

Is this illegal in Victoria under the RRT2001 ? (yes)

Here is an example of Mohammeds regard for Christians (by name)

http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/056.sbt.html

Volume 4, Book 56, Number 660:
Narrated 'Aisha and Ibn 'Abbas:

On his death-bed Allah's Apostle put a sheet over his-face and when he felt hot, he would remove it from his face. When in that state (of putting and removing the sheet) he said, "May Allah's Curse be on the Jews and the Christians for they build places of worship at the graves of their prophets." (By that) he intended to warn (the Muslim) from what they (i.e. Jews and Christians) had done.

Well there we have it, strait from the horses mouth "Christians and Jews are CURSED"

Now.. if I can be so delicate as to ask "Whos foot is the vilifiying shoe on" ? :)

http://www.econ.ntu.edu.tw/sem-paper/95_1/micro_950928.pdf

Development of a Just War Theory beyond Augustine's and Aquinas theory, click link below.

http://www.monksofadoration.org/justwar.html

""Those against war argue mainly from Sacred Scripture, especially the New Testament. The main claim made is that Jesus taught and lived a nonviolent position. St. Paul and the primitive Church continued this tradition. The Constantinian era compromised Christian thought by identifying the Church with the State. Nevertheless, examples of pacifist movements can be seen in later Church history. A different form of argument especially brought forward with St. Thomas More is the possibility of a just war in theory but impossible in reality. Others attack a Just War Theory as irrelevant in modern warfare. Still others claim the theory is useless in coming to conclusions""