H
Hume
Guest
Care to give a post number?
readies popcorn
Last edited:
- Status
readies popcorn
G
goout
Guest
You miss the point of morality. Morality is not speculation upon hypotheticals, nor is it theological musings.goout:
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”.
Morality is the evaluation of human acts in reference to the good. So if nothing else, morality is real, (or incarnate)
What you call nebulous is more properly called difficult, or confusing.
O
o_mlly
Guest
Care to butter your own popcorn? Re-read the posts, doing so will, you know … help your retention. Mother of all learning kinda thing.
H
Hume
Guest
I didn’t think you could do it either.Hume:
Care to butter your own popcorn? Re-read the posts, doing so will, you know … help your retention. Mother of all learning kinda thing.
O
o_mlly
Guest
Oh, now, now. Tsk, tsk … don’t be upset when you’re called out.
You’ll get over it.
H
Hume
Guest
You have a bit of a history of calling people out for things they didn’t actually do. Ergo your inability to reference a post where I interestingly defend preemptive strikes despite that not even remotely reflecting my view.Hume:
Oh, now, now. Tsk, tsk … don’t be upset when you’re called out.
Thanks for your… …contributions?
O
o_mlly
Guest
Ahhh … you have that backwards. I am the caller, not the callee of strawmen.
I could but I like you too much to rob you of a teaching moment. Look it up.
U
undead_rat
Guest
That is a good point. If, say, a country like Japan, were threatened by an armada of invading ships, their use of atomic bombs against it would have to be considered defensive.
We might here consider the circumstances of Germany’s air assault on England in WW II. At first only military targets were attacked. But then a German plane strayed off course and dropped its bombs on London. This mistake allowed Churchill to order English bombers to attack Berlin, an act which enraged Hitler who then ordered his airforce to bomb English cities.
We should remember that both the USA and Russia have vast arsenals of retaliatory nuclear armed missiles and bombers. The danger in allowing a nuclear bomb to be used even in a truly defensive situation is that it opens the door to the other uses of this terrible weapon.
O
o_mlly
Guest
And, those “swords” should never leave their scabbards. But if we did not have them, we could not rattle them and then the unjust would likely make slaves of us all.
U
undead_rat
Guest
As I have noted, that is exactly the same argument that the so-called “unjust” use in order to justify their own possession of ICBM arsenals. Perhaps those Orthodox Christians see us in the USA as being just as unjust as we see them.
U
undead_rat
Guest
The Church has condemned the very possession of nuclear weapons, and Pope Francis has called the MAD protocol a “negative peace” not based on Christian values. Under these circumstances the use of a nuclear weapon in war can hardly be considered moral.
As I have said, ICBM arsenals are retaliatory devices. But another possibility is their use as a first-strike weapon. While both the USA and Russia deny that such is their intention, both continue to develop nuclear first-strike capabilities. Especially troubling is Russia’s deployment of a submarine launched nuclear armed stealth cruise missile. This weapon is undetectable either when launched or in flight.
When one side concludes that the other has developed a full-blown first-strike capability, that side will find itself under great pressure to launch its own pre-emptive strike. That is where the MAD protocol will fail and global nuclear war will occur.
It is predicted in our Bible, and our only defense against it is to pay heed to Pope Francis’ words and dismantle all of our nuclear bombs.
As I have said, ICBM arsenals are retaliatory devices. But another possibility is their use as a first-strike weapon. While both the USA and Russia deny that such is their intention, both continue to develop nuclear first-strike capabilities. Especially troubling is Russia’s deployment of a submarine launched nuclear armed stealth cruise missile. This weapon is undetectable either when launched or in flight.
When one side concludes that the other has developed a full-blown first-strike capability, that side will find itself under great pressure to launch its own pre-emptive strike. That is where the MAD protocol will fail and global nuclear war will occur.
It is predicted in our Bible, and our only defense against it is to pay heed to Pope Francis’ words and dismantle all of our nuclear bombs.
Last edited:
O
o_mlly
Guest
And your point is, what: That the unjust also lie?
U
undead_rat
Guest
No, it is more simple than that: two wrongs do not make a right.
O
o_mlly
Guest
Two wrongs?
Are you now extending the ban from nuclear armed ICBMs to all nuclear weapons? We’ve already made the case that tactical nukes deployed in self-defense is not immoral. The principle of legitimate self-defense is longstanding in Catholic moral theology.
U
undead_rat
Guest
I agreed that a tactical use of a nuclear weapon might be regarded as a defensive use under certain circumstances, but i did not agree that such a use would me moral. The problem here is that the use of any weapon in war tends to escalate. The coming global nuclear war will start with this “tactical” use of nuclear weapons.
Jeremiah 25:32-33
See ! The disaster spreads
from nation to nation.
A mighty tempest rises
from the far ends of the earth.
Those slaughtered by YHWH that day will be scattered across the world from end to end.
No dirge will be raised for them; no one will gather them or bury them; they will stay lying on the surface like dung.
Jeremiah 25:32-33
See ! The disaster spreads
from nation to nation.
A mighty tempest rises
from the far ends of the earth.
Those slaughtered by YHWH that day will be scattered across the world from end to end.
No dirge will be raised for them; no one will gather them or bury them; they will stay lying on the surface like dung.
O
o_mlly
Guest
The right to self-defense is not absolute but conditional as already discussed. If those conditions are met then an act of self-defense is moral, your agreement or disagreement notwithstanding.
Foreseeable effects are prudential and always part of the calculus in determining the morality of an act. While you are certainly allowed to have your own judgments, they remain your own.
U
undead_rat
Guest
The world has known for years that Israel possessed nuclear weapons, but when asked about this, their politicians would always dodge the question by saying that Israel would never be the first to use nuclear weapons in the middle east.
Lately, however, Israel has backed off the above propaganda and is saying, instead, that Israel will never allow Iran to build a nuclear weapon. That statement implies that Israel is willing to attack Iran’s underground nuclear facilities with nuclear bombs since these cannot be taken out with conventional weapons.
Lately, however, Israel has backed off the above propaganda and is saying, instead, that Israel will never allow Iran to build a nuclear weapon. That statement implies that Israel is willing to attack Iran’s underground nuclear facilities with nuclear bombs since these cannot be taken out with conventional weapons.
U
undead_rat
Guest
“Foreseeable effects” are given in our Holy Scriptures. We should take both prophecy and what Pope Francis says serioulsly.
O
o_mlly
Guest
The foreseeable effects are in the mind of the reasonable actor. Consequences, the intended and unintended effects (which do not render the act itself as intrinsically evil), remain in the circumstances font. Catholic teaching does not forbid the possession of nuclear weapons for deterrent purposes.
If reasonable and informed prudence allows that nuclear weapons can be used both discriminately and proportionately to good effect in a just war then their use is moral.
Pope Francis has issued an opinion, not a teaching, that nuclear weapons have “devastating, indiscriminate and uncontainable effects, over time and space.” However, the pope is not an expert on nuclear weaponry. If the pope is correct then it follows from jus in bello principles that the use of nuclear weapons is prohibited. However, the experts disagree:
U
undead_rat
Guest
what this discussion boils down to is that one of us chooses to believe the Pope and Holy Scripture while the other chooses a modernist who has no understanding of YHWH’s plan for humanity
- Status