Has there ever been a just war?

  • Thread starter Thread starter catholictiger
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Although I am not taking issue with your other statements on the history, I say the Church would have survived. That is in its nature. The Pope would be in exile, maybe all the way to Australia (if the New World became Fascist), but whoever is in command of government, the Church will be there until the end of time.

ICXC NIKA
Oh, I don’t know about that. The Church DID survive, of course, as promised. But saying that if things turned out differently the Church wouldn’t be here isn’t an unfair statement.Things DIDN’T turn out differently, and the Church is still here-that’s what matters.
 
Oh, I don’t know about that. The Church DID survive, of course, as promised. But saying that if things turned out differently the Church wouldn’t be here isn’t an unfair statement.Things DIDN’T turn out differently, and the Church is still here-that’s what matters.
True, very true 🙂

I think Geddie’s point though is that the Church would always survive, even against the odds.

However a different way of looking at things is that Nazism (and later Communism) couldn’t suceed because the Church had to survive and that’s why history had to work out the way it did, which in the case of Nazism was of course the war which spelled its defeat.

I’m now edging away from Geddie towards your understanding 😃

I think you both are right, there are just different perspectives to look at this hypothetical situation of Nazi triumph from.
 
True, very true 🙂

I think Geddie’s point though is that the Church would always survive, even against the odds.

However a different way of looking at things is that Nazism (and later Communism) couldn’t suceed because the Church had to survive and that’s why history had to work out the way it did, which in the case of Nazism was of course the war which spelled its defeat.

I’m now edging away from Geddie towards your understanding 😃

I think you both are right, there are just different perspectives to look at this hypothetical situation of Nazi triumph from.
And I would modify my earlier statement that the Papacy, in order to survive would have gone into exile. The Vatican, after all, stood within solidly Fascist territory prior to the war, yet functioned normally. There may have been no need at all for it to relocate overseas.

ICXC NIKA
 
Oh come on. Why not turn the other cheek with the Muslims and simply defend Europe rather than invade other lands and put them into our control? The Reconquesta was well under way in Spain. The lands conquered by the Muslims in the Arab Invasions had been in there hands for hundreds of years.
Both the Middle East and North Africa used to be strongly Christian lands, and the faith present there was slowly being strangled by the Muslim conquerors. Spain and Portugal were more successful against their Moorish enemies because the Moors were strung out on a limb far from their central command. The Christians in Spain had more time to organize resistance and consolidate their gains before the Muslims could react.
We didn’t have any need, really, and our “help” to Byzantium resulted eventually, long-term, with the horrendous Sack of Constantinople which sounded the death knell for the Empire and is a key cause for its ultimate collapse into Turkish hands. We could I am sure have defended Byzantium without claiming land for ourselves and minus the terrible massacres of civilian Muslim populations such as during the Siege of Constantinople.
Surely, the Christians could not have known they would need more than one Crusade, and that the fourth among them would result in the sack of a Christian capital. And yes, Byzantium needed help desperately. The Muslims destroyed them at Manzikert, and even though their initial siege failed, time and preparation would have brought the city down.

The Crusaders sacked Constantinople in 1204, and the city fell to the Turks in 1453. 249 years seems plenty of time for the Byzantines to recover from the first and prepare for the second. Constantinople fell to the Turks because of internal (dynastic) disputes among the Byzantines, not because the Crusaders sacked the city.

Certainly we could have defended Byzantium from ultimate destruction, but don’t forget, the goal of the Crusades was to free the Christians in the Holy Land. Byzantium was a valuable ally in the east, not to mention a standard route of travel to the Middle East, and would have to stand against future Muslim threats. It was simply good strategy to include the Byzantines in the plans for the reconquest of the Jerusalem.

As a final note, the Crusaders did not go over there to colonize the Middle East. Largely, they returned to their homes, leaving garrisons and those who swore their lives to defend that land and its pilgrims.
Now we cannot impose the Geneva Convention on Middle Age people. What the Christians did was not “awful” or illegal by the standards of the time but in our modern eyes it would constitute war crimes. And that’s the point I am making.
Good point. We cannot view their motives, their aims, their actions with “rose-colored glasses.” We must understand them as they would have, if we are to make judgments on them.
I’m not saying the Crusades didn’t have a just cause (I actually believe that they did), I am merely presenting you with an alternate understanding. To call the Crusades “holy” (NO WAR IS HOLY or can be since it results in the loss of human life) and to hold them up as an exemplary instance of just combat, without looking at them in historical context, and while likewise trying to undermine the necessity and justice behind World War Two, is way off in my opinion.
Can anything which results in the loss of human life be called holy?
PS I do believe the Crusades had a just cause, although like World War II not all the actions of the Christians were in accordance with just action.
Again, a point well-made and well-taken.

God bless,
sandomenico
 
i don’t know if this has been posted on this thread,but i think the war in heaven when Archangel Michael kicked the butt of the devil out of heaven was a justifiable one…

Gods consent and all. 👍👍
 
i don’t know if this has been posted on this thread,but i think the war in heaven when Archangel Michael kicked the butt of the devil out of heaven was a justifiable one…

Gods consent and all. 👍👍
I don’t know if that compares to our wars though.

In spiritual warfare, nobody dies (since the combatants have no bodies or physical life). Therefore the finality of the cost, which makes human war so hideous, is not there.

ICXC NIKA
 
I don’t know if that compares to our wars though.

In spiritual warfare, nobody dies (since the combatants have no bodies or physical life). Therefore the finality of the cost, which makes human war so hideous, is not there.

ICXC NIKA
the devil works in suicides.the number of those in my country is on the rise second to none…

would abortion be works of the devil?not in every way but nearly…if not definatly in some way shape or form?

to name but a few spiritual battle grounds
 
the devil works in suicides.the number of those in my country is on the rise second to none…

would abortion be works of the devil?not in every way but nearly…if not definatly in some way shape or form?

to name but a few spiritual battle grounds
Since returning to the Catholic Church about 5 months ago after being away for 20 years, and this time being invested in participating actively in the Catholic Religion I have come to believe that the devil and his works are extremely prevalent. I believe that wars and killing is the work of the devil and can see how society has been and is being transformed by the works of satan. People celebrate things that should not be happening at all. I’m glad that I can see things this way. I consider this to be a result of my faith in action, having my prayers answered and having the clarity of mind to recognize things as evil and the works of the devil. I paid no mind to this when I was away from the Church, but since my return things have been and are being revealed to me as a result of my faith and prayer and am convinced this is the work of God, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit in my life.

Has there every been a just war? Has there ever been a just murder? Would it be the work of the devil to have people on a grand scale feeling good and positive about wars and killings that take place as part of war? Would it be the work of the devil that as human beings, as children of God, that we don’t give much thought at all to all of the civilians who wind up being killed as the result of wars? Is it the work of the devil that we are constantly bombarded with negative things in the media like wars and murders so that we become decensitized to such things?

Peace,
Bill
 
“For see how Yahweh comes in fire, …to assuage His anger with burning, His threats with flaming fire.” “For by fire will Yahweh execute judgement, and by His sword against all mankind. The victims of Yahweh will be many.” Isaiah 66:15,16 What have us humans done to deserve this fate? I say that it is because we have rejected the teaching of Yahweh’s Son, the Jewish Messiah, Yehoshua ben Yosef. He very clearly taught us the correct way to react to the attacks of our enemies. His tortuous death should rightly be regarded as the seal of that holy and profound teaching and as what we ourselves should be willing to endure in the name of loving our enemies. The leaders of the Chosen People rejected His Teachings and chose to participate in a “just war” against Roman occupation. Defeated and exiled, the Jewish nation had to live for almost two millenium without a country, without an army, at the mercy of their enemies. Against all odds, they survived without any capacity for warfare!
I see postings mentioning Hitler and Imperial Japan, and how we had to resort to war to oppose “evil.” But Yahweh has never appointed us to be be the world’s policemen. His Son taught surrender and suffered greatly in order to demonstrate that Teaching. That is the true meaning of the Crucifixtion, not some maccabre “sacrifice” for the “forgiveness” of our sins. (The Son of Man has “authority to forgive sins”, so why would He need to undergo that brutal torture to get us forgiveness? Makes no sense. He can forgive all the sins He wants, anytime, anywhere!)
The fire is coming. We have prepared it ourselves. Our rejection of Yehoshua’s Teaching has led to the construction of our nuclear arsonals. That rejection further leads our nation to the support of the racist policy of Zionism in the middle east. People! Its no “accident of history!” Yahweh is setting us up! We will be learning the hard way that war is not the answer. WWIII and nuclear holocaust. “I have come to bring fire to the earth, and how I wish it were blazing already!”
For a more recent prophesy see Mother Shipton’s poem about the dragon’s tail. Its not pretty.
 
“For see how Yahweh comes in fire, …to assuage His anger with burning, His threats with flaming fire.” “For by fire will Yahweh execute judgement, and by His sword against all mankind. The victims of Yahweh will be many.” Isaiah 66:15,16 What have us humans done to deserve this fate? I say that it is because we have rejected the teaching of Yahweh’s Son, the Jewish Messiah, Yehoshua ben Yosef. He very clearly taught us the correct way to react to the attacks of our enemies. His tortuous death should rightly be regarded as the seal of that holy and profound teaching and as what we ourselves should be willing to endure in the name of loving our enemies. The leaders of the Chosen People rejected His Teachings and chose to participate in a “just war” against Roman occupation. Defeated and exiled, the Jewish nation had to live for almost two millenium without a country, without an army, at the mercy of their enemies. Against all odds, they survived without any capacity for warfare!
Interesting observations, Jeffrey. Were the Jews engaged in a just war with the Romans? It seems more that a small group of them, the Zealots, had rebelled against that rule; and the people themselves tended to look for a king – “the son of David” – to lead them in a just rebellion against their conquerors. A reverse of Exodus: the Jews drive out their masters.

And the Jews, it seems, suffered because they rejected and killed the man who threatened their already tenuous political stability. Who were the real Zealots? Jews like Barabbas? Or Ciaphas and his followers who said: “You do not know anything. It is better for one man to die than an entire people”? It seemed to Ciaphas that Jesus would destroy the Jewish nation by destroying the Jewish religion and the elder’s hierarchy. Little did Ciaphas know that rejecting Our Lord would result in the same thing, only much, much worse.

We should all be able to give our lives for Christ and for each other. The Cross is a lesson in warfare, much more poignant and universal than any battle fought between nations. Christ is our King, our new David; and He led us to victory over sin and death by sacrificing His own life in such a way as to be an indisputable example for all ages. Had Christ laid down His life in physical battle with the Romans, the image would have been mixed; and it would appear He died only for the Jews, not for all men, as He came to do.

That image should inform all of our actions in war and preparing for war. War should always be a last resort. It should involve as few deaths as possible on both sides. (We in the West need to reconsider our “caged lion” fighting tactics). Peace should be the end of all wars. And no nation should attack another without grave cause.
I see postings mentioning Hitler and Imperial Japan, and how we had to resort to war to oppose “evil.” But Yahweh has never appointed us to be be the world’s policemen. His Son taught surrender and suffered greatly in order to demonstrate that Teaching. That is the true meaning of the Crucifixtion, not some maccabre “sacrifice” for the “forgiveness” of our sins. (The Son of Man has “authority to forgive sins”, so why would He need to undergo that brutal torture to get us forgiveness? Makes no sense. He can forgive all the sins He wants, anytime, anywhere!)
The fire is coming. We have prepared it ourselves. Our rejection of Yehoshua’s Teaching has led to the construction of our nuclear arsonals. That rejection further leads our nation to the support of the racist policy of Zionism in the middle east. People! Its no “accident of history!” Yahweh is setting us up! We will be learning the hard way that war is not the answer. WWIII and nuclear holocaust. “I have come to bring fire to the earth, and how I wish it were blazing already!”
For a more recent prophesy see Mother Shipton’s poem about the dragon’s tail. Its not pretty.
Beware of interpreting the mind of God too freely. His ways are not the ways of men, and His thoughts not those of men.

And remember the context in which Christ spoke of the fire he wished to set in the earth: the parables of the wealthy man who built a barn, but would die that night; the birds of the air and the lillies of the field; and the warning to prepare for the coming of the master. He spoke of those who had their minds on earthly matters, and were not preparing their hearts for His coming. He came to set a fire in the hearts of all men by His Passion and resurrection, and how He must have wished it were all ready kindled. And how sorrowful all the stony hearts that would remain buried in the dust of the world must have made Him.

All good things to keep in mind.

God love you,
sandomenico
 
Sandomenico: Thank you for reading and responding to my post. I was refering to the Bar Kochba revolt of 132AD that was started by the false messiah, Simon bar Kochba. (The Jewish Nazarene sect refused to participate, resulting in their expulsion from Judaism.) As for my intrepretation of our Lord’s words about the “fire,” I don’t agree with the watered down version offered by mainstream theology. His words should properly be understood in the light of Isaiah 66:16. Our Great Rabbi is Yahweh’s Son. He speaks for Yahweh. His sacred words are Yahweh’s words. What Yahweh spoke to the prophets, our Teacher speaks to us.
“Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth: it is not peace I have come to bring, but a sword.”
Thanks again for listening.
 
America was justified in taking action against Great Britain in the War of 1812.
 
America was justified in taking action against Great Britain in the War of 1812.
Hmm…do you perchance harbour negativity towards the United Kingdom my friend? Because I am not sure that the 1812 War is quite so simple. I recall that the US might have wanted to annex Canada and also that the British helped arm Native Americans to stop white American expanion into their territories. Apparently the British had a well-established goal of creating a large “neutral” native Indian state that would cover much of Ohio, Indiana, and Michigan. They made the demand as late as the fall of 1814 at the peace conference, but lost control of western Ontario at key battles on Lake Erie, thus giving the Americans control of the proposed neutral zone…and ah, that didn’t turn out too well for the natives after the war ended in 1815, did it? 😦

I think that neither the British nor the Americans were particularly “glowing” at that time. It was all a pretty dirty affair on both sides TBH.

And it was the US who declared war on the UK, supposedly for reasons of “national honour”. Thats just petty and war-mongering from my point of view. So there is a powerful arguement against the US, actually although I side with neither in the conflict.

I do believe though that the US shouldn’t have started that war.

The war of 1812 would thus certainly not be on my - rather small list - of just causes for war.
 
Thank you for correcting me. I meant to say that God allowed the Jews to reap the harvest they had sown when they chose to kill Christ and save their political kingdom, rather than listen to Him. Since they would choose to kill Christ, it was in His plan to die on the Cross to save all men.

God love you,
sandomenico
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top