H
Hume
Guest
That’s a fine point.
- Status
H
Hume
Guest
I’d agree with the thread idea. But I don’t think it could be possible to support the concept of preemptive war and be a disciple of Jesus of Nazareth. “Strike them before they strike you” doesn’t nest very well with the rest of his personal teachings - Trinitarian segues aside.
O
o_mlly
Guest
H
Hume
Guest
It was an interesting enough piece of scripture that I went and checked Calvin’s Commentary, the Commentary published by the USCCB and some sermon notes from Chrysostom.
None of them supported an interpretation advocating for the armament of the disciples.
When I did a general search, the pro-armament approach was almost exclusively evangelical, American and novel.
So from a Catholic perspective, it’s likely a “maybe not”.
None of them supported an interpretation advocating for the armament of the disciples.
When I did a general search, the pro-armament approach was almost exclusively evangelical, American and novel.
So from a Catholic perspective, it’s likely a “maybe not”.
Last edited:
U
undead_rat
Guest
Russian Orthodox priests bless their nation’s nuclear arsenal every year and say that these weapons are necessary to prevent Russia’s enslavement by the West. And most churches in the west permit their members to design and build nuclear weapons and to serve in the military which deploys them.
Both sides cannot be right, but both can be wrong and that is what we see here. Our Creator will have us learn the madness of our folly the hard way. We were given a sacred commandment to love our neighbors. Building and deploying a nuclear arsenal is a gross violation of that commandment, and consequences of that transgression will be nuclear war. It is predicted in Holy Scripture.
Last edited:
M
mythbuster1
Guest
There were 16-year-olds in the US Army in WWII. You didn’t become draft eligible until 18, but younger teens could volunteer.
O
o_mlly
Guest
New thread. Until then, the answer remains, as I wrote, simply, “maybe” and could only be justified as an argument from self-defense.
… in the future period of the church the missionaries must be prepared for the opposition they will face in a world hostile to their preaching (USCCB).
O
o_mlly
Guest
The principle of self-defense, singular or collective, has charity as a motivating principle, both toward victims of unjust aggression and toward the the aggressors in ending their acts of injustice.
G
goout
Guest
In any case, no matter how you evaluate this (hypothetical) moral dilemma, Christianity provides an objective framework to begin the basic task of evaluating human action.
Atheism does not (and fair enough, atheism does not even propose such a thing, since it is not a positive proposal for higher purposes and ideas, but the mere rejection of God)
But Christianity gives even you a framework to debate the moral truth of the matter, ironically. Your observation of Christianity’s fundamental option to turn the other cheek is spot on. Good for you at least in that regard.
Just war is also a doctrine worth considering, and the moral evaluations are as messy as the human condition, which is to say very messy.
Atheism does not (and fair enough, atheism does not even propose such a thing, since it is not a positive proposal for higher purposes and ideas, but the mere rejection of God)
But Christianity gives even you a framework to debate the moral truth of the matter, ironically. Your observation of Christianity’s fundamental option to turn the other cheek is spot on. Good for you at least in that regard.
Just war is also a doctrine worth considering, and the moral evaluations are as messy as the human condition, which is to say very messy.
Last edited:
U
undead_rat
Guest
What is relevant here is the fact that nuclear armed ICBMs are not, strictly speaking, defense weapons. Rather they are retaliatory, and the act of retaliation is forbidden by Holy Law.
O
o_mlly
Guest
What is relevant I think is the thread’s title, “Is it immoral to use nuclear weapons in war” not the special case of “Is it immoral to use nuclear armed ICBMs weapons in war”.
H
Hume
Guest
I’m delighted to find Christians that actually know this. Tip of the cap.
No, not ironically. There are other frameworks.
As rational agents, we can choose which we want to follow. And I think the best argument for a secular morality is the tenets that the world religions tend to share.
It’s immoral for men who can’t consummate to marry! - Not so much. Not very universal.
Don’t steal! - Pretty good. Found practically everywhere.
The doctrine of Just War is a gift horse, imho.
H
Hume
Guest
Sure, and those who want war and dominance and fear will always find a reason for the tools to make them.Hume:
New thread. Until then, the answer remains, as I wrote, simply, “maybe” and could only be justified as an argument from self-defense.
… in the future period of the church the missionaries must be prepared for the opposition they will face in a world hostile to their preaching (USCCB).
As I’ve stated numerous times, we believe what we want - as evidenced by people of a foundationally pacifist religion advocating for the tools of mass death in the modern age.
O
o_mlly
Guest
You know you’re making a case for preemptive strikes, right? Only unjust aggressors want war.
G
goout
Guest
You rebuttal of just war doctrine is based on “Jesus said…”goout:
I’m delighted to find Christians that actually know this. Tip of the cap.
No, not ironically. There are other frameworks.
As rational agents, we can choose which we want to follow. And I think the best argument for a secular morality is the tenets that the world religions tend to share.
It’s immoral for men who can’t consummate to marry! - Not so much. Not very universal.
Don’t steal! - Pretty good. Found practically everywhere.
The doctrine of Just War is a gift horse, imho.
You can’t go to atheism or secularist principles because those are demonstrably vacuous. They have no foundation on which to make judgments.
It’s awesome that you referenced the person of Christ as the foundation of your moral argument. It’s awesome that you admit moral objectives are even worth discussing and pursuing.
H
Hume
Guest
I’ll risk the ban - the case for preemptive nuclear war can only be made by the thoroughly stupid.
It’s akin to trying to dispatch a home invader by throwing a 500lb bomb down the hall at them.
I forget whether it was Chrysostom or the USCCB that gave this commentary on Luke, but if Jesus wanted the disciples armed, 2 swords weren’t going to do it. 10-11 guys with two swords against a squad of legionaries (the arrested Jesus’s escorts) would have resulted in nothing more than 10-11 dead Jews.
H
Hume
Guest
No, it’s that “Just War” is a nebulous concept that, like the gift horse, only retains it’s assumed value if not closely examined.
Jesus of Nazareth, like 100s of others, made some good points. And I don’t know a single atheist that doesn’t consider moral objectives worth discussion. They may exist, but I’ve yet to encounter any.
G
goout
Guest
Just war doctrine is nebulous?
It’s anything but nebulous. Difficult to apply, yes.
But that’s the human response to moral evaluation: a lot of variables need to be confronted and actions evaluated in light of the good. That’s hard. Nebulous? Hardly.
It’s anything but nebulous. Difficult to apply, yes.
But that’s the human response to moral evaluation: a lot of variables need to be confronted and actions evaluated in light of the good. That’s hard. Nebulous? Hardly.
Last edited:
H
Hume
Guest
Sure, the list of variables can be practically endless and as to who determines the good - one group of bishops will surely and inevitably disagree with the other. A clear answer will never be found among consensus if it’s ever actually sought. The chair will have to force a solution.
So, in a word, “nebulous”.
Last edited:
O
o_mlly
Guest
Well, no one but you tried to make a case so … ban yourself?
Read the posts to avoid this strawman. The proposition for a new thread was not a preemptive nuclear war but a preemptive strike to prohibit one – big difference.
- Status