What is the official Church position regarding the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Curious11
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
That is and odd statement unless one is tripping on acid.
 
Last edited:
Those who want unilateral disarmament. Disarmament must be mutual, else it means placing yourself at the mercy of others. Furthermore, unilateral disarmament could actually encourage proliferation among our allies, who would no longer trust us to meet our mutual defense obligations. Why would Poland not fear Russian aggression if the United States removed the nuclear umbrella? What would prevent them from establishing a nuclear deterrent of their own?
Whatever the negative effects of unilateral disarmament might be, they are nothing compared to the inevitable consequences of failing to do so. Global nuclear war is predicted by Scripture. Psalm 9:15-16; Isaiah 2:19 &66:15-16; Jeremiah 25:32-33; and Luke 12:49 are just a few of the many places. 25:33 is particularly graphic:

“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.”

You paint a pessimistic picture of such disarmament. The positive outlook is that the USA could work with the sole nuclear superpower (Russia) to either persuade or to force all other nuclear armed states to disarm these types of weapons.

The alternative is to find ourselves living like rats in radioactive holes in the ground, and prophecy suggests that this will happen in the first half of the present century.
 
Last edited:
Whatever the negative effects of unilateral disarmament might be, they are nothing compared to the inevitable consequences of failing to do so. Global nuclear war is predicted by Scripture. Psalm 9:15-16; Isaiah 2:19 &66:15-16; Jeremiah 25:32-33; and Luke 12:49 are just a few of the many places. 25:33 is particularly graphic:
If it has been predicted (foretold) it will happen regardless of any action of ours, disarmament or otherwise. If have I misunderstood you?
 
If it has been predicted (foretold) it will happen regardless of any action of ours, disarmament or otherwise. If have I misunderstood you?
Our Creator knows that we will not choose to follow His commandments of trusting Him and loving our neighbors on the other side of the world. Therefore the predictions by His prophets of disaster. But just as Nineveh responded to Jonah’s prediction and avoided destruction, so we could respond to the predictions of Isaiah and Jeremiah. We do have an out.
 
I do not know that the modern way of understanding apocalyptic imagery is all that good. I wouldn’t base policy or moral theology on proof-texting.
Moral theology has been spelled out clearly by our Teacher: Trust God, love your neighbor, return good for evil.

Since the advent of massive forces of nuclear armed ICBMs my opinion is that there is only one way to understand the terrible warnings of Isaiah, Jeremiah and others.
Note Psalm 9:15-15:

The nations have fallen into the pit they dug themselves;
they are caught by the feet in the snare they set.
YHWH has made Himself known, has given judgment;
He has trapped the wicked in the work of their own hands.
 
Since the advent of massive forces of nuclear armed ICBMs my opinion is that there is only one way to understand the terrible warnings of Isaiah, Jeremiah and others.

Note Psalm 9:15-15:
That may be your take, but that is not a Catholic position. The idea that David flipped over to some sort of fortune-telling in the middle of a Psalm about praise and deliverance, doesn’t make a bit of sense to me. I still see it as proof-texting.

In any case, national policy does not need to be made on the individual interpretation of Scripture of a few people. It is too Nostradamus-ish.
 
That may be your take, but that is not a Catholic position. The idea that David flipped over to some sort of fortune-telling in the middle of a Psalm about praise and deliverance, doesn’t make a bit of sense to me. I still see it as proof-texting.

In any case, national policy does not need to be made on the individual interpretation of Scripture of a few people. It is too Nostradamus-ish.
Psalm 9:15-16 is hardly the only passage in the “fortune telling” of the Bible that predicts a world-wide disaster of fire. In Genesis 8:21 YHWH promises never again to inflict a global disaster on mankind. That leaves “the work of our own hands” as the only possible means of fulfillment of the global death by fire predicted by Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Jesus. Yes, this is not the Catholic interpretation, but, with all due respect to the Church, I have to say that, in my opinion, the Catechism is not correct in its teaching that the fire of Luke 12:49 is benign.
 
Last edited:
the Catechism is not correct in its teaching that the fire of Luke 12:49 is benign.
Might I suggest that beliefs that are contrary to Catholicism make poor arguments on Catholic site. For one, I think all proof-texting is contrary to Scripture. It is too similar to what Satan did to tempt Christ. Nonetheless, I see in this a valuable lesson. Namely that since such a manner of interpreting Scripture forms too easily around the person reading, it was absolutely necessary that the Holy Spirit came to guide the disciples in all truth, and that there was some structure for which that guidance can be manifest, as opposed to the “every man for himself” approach of most denominations.
 
Last edited:
My Priest at St. Anskar’s informs me that the Anglican view of the fire of Luke 12:49 is that this fire is the same as the fire of Isaiah 66:15-16. It may be as you say, “a poor argument,” but it is an argument nontheless. I feel that the participants on this forum deserve to see it.
 
David killed Goliath.

LOTS of other killing in the Old Testament … so gory that it makes you sick to your stomach.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top