B
bones_IV
Guest
Saddam murdered and tortured his own people. He had rape and torture rooms!Or it could be oil
- Status
B
Brendan
Guest
Doubtful, if oil was the reason, we would have taken it all by now. Or, even better, invaded Venezula. It had an even smaller army and is closer too.Or it could be oil
N
Nagoda
Guest
I think the author of the article is a hypocrite. he says that jesus would not adhere to the political views of the democrats but he would certainly adhere to the views of the political right because he feels the right are right. so hes doing the exact same thing he accuses the democrats of: attaching jesus to a political cause. now, myself being a liberal, do i recognize that jesus had leftist tendencies? of course. but he was also very conservative and orthodox in his theology and his respect for life, so he had conservative tendencies as well. i agree with the one poster: jesus came right down the middle. god does not side with one side, he recognizes that both sides have good things and will use those good things. god does see the good in all of his children, whatever their political ideology. as for jesus being against war, im going to have to say he was. i dont think you can find a verse that demonstrates this more clearly than this one here from st matthew’s gospel:
Then the men stepped forward, seized Jesus and arrested him. With that, one of Jesus’ companions reached for his sword, drew it out and struck the servant of the high priest, cutting off his ear.
“Put your sword back in its place,” Jesus said to him, “for all who draw the sword will die by the sword. Do you think I cannot call on my Father, and he will at once put at my disposal more than twelve legions of angels?”
i dont think you can get more explicit than that. i also find it interesting since st matthew was supposedly writing to a jewish audience that this appears in his gospel. perhaps its a comment on the warring ways of the old testament?
Then the men stepped forward, seized Jesus and arrested him. With that, one of Jesus’ companions reached for his sword, drew it out and struck the servant of the high priest, cutting off his ear.
“Put your sword back in its place,” Jesus said to him, “for all who draw the sword will die by the sword. Do you think I cannot call on my Father, and he will at once put at my disposal more than twelve legions of angels?”
i dont think you can get more explicit than that. i also find it interesting since st matthew was supposedly writing to a jewish audience that this appears in his gospel. perhaps its a comment on the warring ways of the old testament?
B
Brendan
Guest
More explicit that what? That if a companion of yours is supposed to die to redeem all mankind, that it is better to let him be captured.
I can agree with that.
But all other cases…
Besided, Christ Himself ordered the Israelites to go to war agains the Bashan, the Amorites and the Philistines.
Those ‘warring’ ways you describe were done by the Command of Christ Himself.
And how will you explain this statement of Christ (Ecc 3:8)
There is…
and Rev 19
N
Nagoda
Guest
It depends at how you look at it. I am liberal in my scriptural interpretation, so I wouldn’t say its Jesus making those statements but rather the Jewish people interpreting God as telling them to go to war (also, by your interpretation it was also God who told the israelites: blessed be the man who bashes the babies head against a rock in the pslams or you will rip the infants from the mothers’ wombs in isaiah. the old testament understanding of god was horrific at times and incomplete). also in the quote jesus says “all who draw the sword will die by it”. to me that says war = death. jesus came to bring us life not death. war is murder just as abortion is murder. youre taking human life either way. jesus would have been against both because he respected the dignity of the human person.
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
There are various ways of interpreting this passage. One of them, as has been pointed out, is that He came to make a sacrifice for mankind and had to make it, so any resistance would be contrary to His mission.
But He knew Peter had a sword – and that carrying a sword was illegal. He did not rebuke him for carrying that sword, but only for using it under those circumstances.
The circumstances include the actual situation – even if they fought their way free from the Temple guards, they would from then on be rebels and outlaws – people who literally “lived by the sword” in those days, and would be subjected to being hunted down and killed by the Romans.
This jibes with our Catholic concept of Just War – one of the criteria is that there must be a reaonable possibility of success. In this case, as I have pointed out, that reasonable possibility did not exist.
But He knew Peter had a sword – and that carrying a sword was illegal. He did not rebuke him for carrying that sword, but only for using it under those circumstances.
The circumstances include the actual situation – even if they fought their way free from the Temple guards, they would from then on be rebels and outlaws – people who literally “lived by the sword” in those days, and would be subjected to being hunted down and killed by the Romans.
This jibes with our Catholic concept of Just War – one of the criteria is that there must be a reaonable possibility of success. In this case, as I have pointed out, that reasonable possibility did not exist.
N
Nagoda
Guest
I dont understand the concept of Just War at all. How can you find justification for killing hundreds/thousands of people in a war but you somehow cannot find justifiction for the killing of a single human person in an abortion? it just doesn’t make sense to me.
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
Here is what the Catechism says:
(my emphasis)
The Church recognizes that even though we don’t want war, others may want to make war on us. When we are attacked or in such imminant danger that no other choice is possible, the goverment has not only a right, but a duty to protect its citizens by making war.
C
Contarini
Guest
Because morality is qualitative, not quantitative. If you have a choice between committing an intrinsically evil act on the one hand and allowing every living thing to die on the other, you should let everyone die (or rather, you should place yourself and the whole universe in God’s hands).
This sounds cruel, but the opposite is true. Your position leads to the society described in Ursula LeGuin’s “The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas,” where people live in utopia because (though the causality is never explained) one little girl lives in misery and squalor. Utilitarianism–which is to say quantified morality–is the ethics of hell.
If you are a prolife “seamless web” pacifist, then my apologies–the preceding does not apply to you!
Edwin
S
St_Benedict
Guest
Do a google on Mugabe. It’s hard to split the two on 'who was (is) worst.
S
St_Benedict
Guest
Well Venezula is not a player in oil in the same league as Iraq or hold an economically potentially disasterous risk for disrupting supply from the all important Middle East area so I don’t believe your comparison is really valid I’m afraid.
N
Nagoda
Guest
I read the Omelas story and yeah that was disturbing. So if morality is qualitative, how come we cant find a case for a just abortion in an extreme case where all efforts have failed?
S
Sheeniac
Guest
I’m quite familiar with Mugabe… I think he is the face of evil, but I doubt anyone can come close to Stalin.
L
levi86
Guest
Have you ever lived in a region in which US troops have been stationed? One of the greatest sources of resentment among these populations comes from US soldiers raping and in some cases (particularly in Japan and ROK) murdering the local inhabitants without being held accountable. And it appears that the USMC is at it again in Iraq.
N
Nagoda
Guest
“If you are a prolife “seamless web” pacifist, then my apologies–the preceding does not apply to you!”
I might be I just dont know what a seamles web pacifist is ive never heard the term before. Perhaps you could clarify?
I might be I just dont know what a seamles web pacifist is ive never heard the term before. Perhaps you could clarify?
C
Contarini
Guest
“Seamless web” was a phrase coined by the late Cardinal Bernardin of Chicago to describe a position of respect for life across the board, including opposition to abortion, war, and capital punishment. My point was that if you are against abortion *and *war, then my argument didn’t apply to you. But it sounded as if you were trying to suggest that abortion might be justified in some circumstances, and your follow-up post confirms this.
We may be using the word “qualitative” differently. My point is that the morality of an act is determined by the kind of act it is, and not (primarily) by some kind of quantitative analysis of how much evil would be caused by doing the act vs. not doing it. Such an analysis only enters the picture if we are talking about acts that are not intrinsically evil. For instance, if you have a choice between saving one person and saving a lot of people (a la the conclusion of the first Spiderman movie), obviously you try to save both, but obviously all things else being equal you should try to save the larger number. However, if in order to save people’s lives you have to commit an intrinsically evil act, then you must let the people die, harsh as that sounds.
This is very relevant for the embryonic stem cell issue. When we use human lives as means to an end, we are not doing anyone any favors in the long run.
Edwin
B
bones_IV
Guest
Where?
B
bones_IV
Guest
Saddam took the WMD’s and disassembled them and hid them in Iraq.Have you ever lived in a region in which US troops have been stationed? One of the greatest sources of resentment among these populations comes from US soldiers raping and in some cases (particularly in Japan and ROK) murdering the local inhabitants without being held accountable. And it appears that the USMC is at it again in Iraq.
C
catholicbuckeye
Guest
Outstanding point. I remember reading (ok, I am too lazy to look it back up on my lunch break and post it, so naturally take this “factoid” with a grain of salt) that only $0.20 out of ever $1.00 earmarked for welfare gets paid out to the recipients. There are also other unintended social consequences of social programs, for instance, the removal of incentive to work; the incentive to raise children without fathers. There are plenty of people who truly need help, particularly the aged, the orphaned, the disabled, the mentally ill for example. But there is plenty of work to be done by able-bodied and able-minded people. The tax money saved by greatly reducing social welfare programs to cover those who truly need help - as opposed to those who would prefer free money to work - would grow the economy substantially, which would certainly provide even more opportunities for gainful employment.
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
Ronald Regan used to point out that if you considered everyone below the poverty level as having no money at all, and gave them each a check to bring them above the poverty level, it would cost only a fraction of what we spend on “poverty programs” – and yet, they’re still poor.
I have yet to meet a liberal who will defend the “Great Society” and it’s devastating impact on society. Unfortunately, I haven’t met anyone willing to dismantle this monstrosity and try to correct the damage, either.
- Status