Simple, just understand the context. Murder is condemned, not killing. God blessed Saul (temporarily), King David, Samson, etc. Jesus never condemns soldiers for being soldiers, and neither do the Apostles.Exodus 20…vs13… You shall not kill.
Why do Christians join the armed forces
Why do christians kill. and how do they justify it?
If you are asking for my opinion on it, I would say yes. It is wrong and it is murder to kill innocent civilians, unless of course, it is completely accidental. But in a case where you drop an A-Bomb and you know for sure that thousands of innocent children will be killed, then if you are asking for my opinion, then yes, it is murder, and it is morally very wrong and is done so only under pain of eternal damnation.Did that knowledge mean that the D-Day invasions were immoral from the start?
Another way to see that these invasions were immoral, is by reading the latest book by Catholic author, Patrick Buchanan: Churchill, Hitler, and The Unnecessary War. From the reviews of the book, it looks like the war could have been easily avoided, and therefore it would not qualify as a just war, since one of the conditions for a just war is something like the war is unavoidable.A great example is the D-Day invasion of Normandy. Eisenhower knew that there would be civilian casualties, both from the shellings, and during the fighting through the towns.
Did that knowledge mean that the D-Day invasions were immoral from the start?
Well, that’s your opinion. I thank God that Harry Truman had a spine. He spare MILLIONS of lives, American and Japanese, by dropping the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. He ended the war very quickly, and did not take the decision lightly.If you are asking for my opinion on it, I would say yes. It is wrong and it is murder to kill innocent civilians, unless of course, it is completely accidental. But in a case where you drop an A-Bomb and you know for sure that thousands of innocent children will be killed, then if you are asking for my opinion, then yes, it is murder, and it is morally very wrong and is done so only under pain of eternal damnation.
Yeah right. It’s easy to re-write history now, given many years of information and second guessing. And that is all that this is. I strongly suspect if you were transported back in time, given the pressure, time frame, and limited information back then, you might have a very different opinion.Another way to see that these invasions were immoral, is by reading the latest book by Catholic author, Patrick Buchanan: Churchill, Hitler, and The Unnecessary War. From the reviews of the book, it looks like the war could have been easily avoided, and therefore it would not qualify as a just war, since one of the conditions for a just war is something like the war is unavoidable.
That might have been because of he pro war propaganda. I am just remarking that according to the new book out by Patrick Buchanan, Churchill, Hitler, and The Unnecessary War, the WWII was unnecessary. According to the reviews I read, Churchill did not want to avoid the war.I strongly suspect if you were transported back in time, given the pressure, time frame, and limited information back then, you might have a very different opinion.
My understanding of Catholic teaching is that the end does not justify the means. As applied to this case, it looks to me like the good end of justifying the end of the war, would not be justified by killing innocent civilian children.I thank God that Harry Truman had a spine. He spare MILLIONS of lives, American and Japanese, by dropping the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. .
The killing of innocent civilians (whether they are children or adults) is to be avoided. It cannot, however, be eliminated. In WW2, they didn’t have the precision weapons that we have now, and civilian deaths were much higher. There was no way around it.My understanding of Catholic teaching is that the end does not justify the means. As applied to this case, it looks to me like the good end of justifying the end of the war, would not be justified by killing innocent civilian children.
I’m not sure what country you are from, but I’ll bet the Jew’s and Christians would beg to differ.That might have been because of he pro war propaganda. I am just remarking that according to the new book out by Patrick Buchanan, Churchill, Hitler, and The Unnecessary War, the WWII was unnecessary. According to the reviews I read, Churchill did not want to avoid the war.
And genocide is also wrong. The use of atomic weapons against civilians set a bad precedent and some consider that these bombings do constitute genocide.for example, it has been reported that many historians agree to Martin Sherwin’s statement, that "the Nagasaki bomb was gratuitous at best and genocidal at worst.The killing of innocent civilians (whether they are children or adults) is to be avoided. It cannot, however, be eliminated. In WW2, they didn’t have the precision weapons that we have now, and civilian deaths were much higher. There was no way around it.
This is the key. Prior to the Atomic bombs, Japan showed no sign of surrender. They were mobilizing their entire population, woman and children included, to fight the invasion. On Okinawa, the military encouraged civilians to commit suicide rather than be captured.How many Japanese civilians would have been killed had the US invaded?
This is nothing more nor less than the doctrine that the end justifies the means. It is OK to commit genocide on innocent Japanese children, because this saved American lives. I am not buying it and remain opposed to the murder of innocent children.The use of the A-bombs likely saved hundreds of thousand of U.S. deaths, and millions of Japanese deaths.
The reason for so many nukes was originally that there was very little assurance that they could be delivered successfully. The war planners were using the attrition rates experienced during World War II and the success of both German and Japanese defense systems against British and American bombers. When you enhance the defense systems with modern radars, nuclear tipped missiles and interceptors, it really makes successful attack difficult.Is it morally right for a nation which does not live by the Ten Commandments and which promotes and endorses a women’s right to choose abortion, and feminism in general, is it morally right for such a nation to possess these horrible atomic and nuclear weapons of mass destruction which can kill every man, woman and child in the entire world, 100 times over, and even after killing everyone with the atomic and nuclear weapons, they still have the chemical and biological weapons of mass destruction to kill everyone 100 more times over again?
Yes, it is impersonal and callous to lightly dismiss the murder of innocent children as would result from the use of nuclear weapons. I am not buying the morality of nuclear weapons since they kill masaively and indiscriminately without distinguishing between soldiers and innocent children. Also, the manner in which these nuclear weapons kill and maim innocent children is horrendously cruel, incinerating them in large swathes of flames at horrific temperatures, setting off huge firestorms, flattening structures, releasing blinding light, and spewing out enormous quantities of radiation with their slow and fast acting poisons, many of which will remain in the environment for years and centuries. The use of these weapons on children promotes the cruelest form of death for them, and even if they are not in the vicinity of the bomb, there is the possiblility of long lasting injury and health damage that will result in a life of excruciating pain, misery and agony for them. It is simply wrong and immoral to use such weapons.Sorry if that sounds impersonal and callous, but if you have to go to war, you need the weapons. There is a “calculus” to the number and mix of weapons and delivery systems.
Research of old wars going back to biblical days suggests that even without nukes, whole populations were routinely annihiliated. That IS what war is. Any folks who survived, were transported into permanent bondage slavery that lasted for decades or centuries. That’s what losing meant. In some cases, the home territory was plowed with salt so that nothing would ever again grow there.Yes, it is impersonal and callous to lightly dismiss the murder of innocent children as would result from the use of nuclear weapons. I am not buying the morality of nuclear weapons since they kill masaively and indiscriminately without distinguishing between soldiers and innocent children. Also, the manner in which these nuclear weapons kill and maim innocent children is horrendously cruel, incinerating them in large swathes of flames at horrific temperatures, setting off huge firestorms, flattening structures, releasing blinding light, and spewing out enormous quantities of radiation with their slow and fast acting poisons, many of which will remain in the environment for years and centuries. The use of these weapons on children promotes the cruelest form of death for them, and even if they are not in the vicinity of the bomb, there is the possiblility of long lasting injury and health damage that will result in a life of excruciating pain, misery and agony for them. It is simply wrong and immoral to use such weapons.
So only the children die? A lot of this is hyperbole, compared to what we now know about nuclear weapons.Yes, it is impersonal and callous to lightly dismiss the murder of innocent children as would result from the use of nuclear weapons. I am not buying the morality of nuclear weapons since they kill masaively and indiscriminately without distinguishing between soldiers and innocent children. Also, the manner in which these nuclear weapons kill and maim innocent children is horrendously cruel, incinerating them in large swathes of flames at horrific temperatures, setting off huge firestorms, flattening structures, releasing blinding light, and spewing out enormous quantities of radiation with their slow and fast acting poisons, many of which will remain in the environment for years and centuries. The use of these weapons on children promotes the cruelest form of death for them, and even if they are not in the vicinity of the bomb, there is the possiblility of long lasting injury and health damage that will result in a life of excruciating pain, misery and agony for them. It is simply wrong and immoral to use such weapons.
I don’t think it was a decision President Truman made with glee and joy.This is nothing more nor less than the doctrine that the end justifies the means. It is OK to commit genocide on innocent Japanese children, because this saved American lives. I am not buying it and remain opposed to the murder of innocent children.
Of course. It is the innocent adults who will also suffer. It is not only that nuclear wepons are horrendously cruel in how they kill and maim, it is that they are indiscriminate in their horrifying character because they kill massively and without regard to who it is that they are killing. And nuclear deterrence is also morally wrong, because the doctrine that war can be avoided by relying on the threat of horrible and unacceptable damage is the wong reason to have peace. Peace should be based on the love Christ: The peace of Christ be with you, and I think it is simply wrong to base peace on the threat of horrifying and horrendous massive annihilation.So only the children die? A lot of this is hyperbole, compared to what we now know about nuclear weapons.
Regardless, if there is a viable military target in a just war, there is always the possibility of innocent adults dying also. You can go ahead and consider them wrong and immoral. You have that freedom, still being alive…