Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
We hope you enjoy your visit!
You're currently viewing Catholic CyberForum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our online cyberparish, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.
Join our community!
Messages posted to this board must be polite and free of abuse, personal attacks, blasphemy, racism, threats, harrassment, and crude or sexually-explicit language.
If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Moral aspects of military action
Topic Started: Friday, 10. June 2011, 17:51 (2,017 Views)
OsullivanB

Anne-Marie
Thursday, 19. July 2012, 05:54
OsullivanB
Wednesday, 18. July 2012, 23:56
I find it interesting that there is no record of his ever having said a word against the passages dealing with the destruction by men of wicked men. We know that he knew at least one psalm as he cited it on the Cross. It is not difficult to believe that he probably knew the others, which abound in imagery of legitimate violence. He is not recorded as rejecting those psalms.
Not entirely accurate, OSB:
Jesus did say, "You have heard it said 'An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth', well I say to you Turn the other cheek, if a man asks you for...."

Not, of course, that I would have obeyed the guidance in the (extreme) situations raised by OSB.
Eye for eye, tooth for tooth deals with judicial remedies for personal wrongs. Turning the other cheek is in response to something that is insulting but not life-threatening. I don't myself see that that gives us a comprehensive code for dealing with issues of defence against life threatening attack, whether that attack be on oneself, another or one's country. However, I'm very much feeling my way here. These were not formerly my opinions.
"There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance - that principle is contempt prior to investigation." Herbert Spencer
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
valleyboy

OsullivanB
Thursday, 19. July 2012, 00:43
Roman Imperial rule was on the whole fairly benign.
Benign of you were a Roman citizen and followed the party line. Lethal if you were not, 6000 crucified on the Appian Way in the slaves revolt, Masada, slaughter of outsiders for entertainment.
Analogies with the structure of Nazi and Communist imperial states are clear, down to the symbolism of the fasces.
Liberal, ecumenical, universal and it's my church too.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Derekap
Member Avatar

Didn't God destroy Sodom and Gomorrah and killed everyone in the towns?
Derekap
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
OsullivanB

valleyboy
Thursday, 19. July 2012, 10:43
OsullivanB
Thursday, 19. July 2012, 00:43
Roman Imperial rule was on the whole fairly benign.
Benign of you were a Roman citizen and followed the party line. Lethal if you were not, 6000 crucified on the Appian Way in the slaves revolt, Masada, slaughter of outsiders for entertainment.
Analogies with the structure of Nazi and Communist imperial states are clear, down to the symbolism of the fasces.
On the whole benign to all those in the Empire. There were exceptions.

Reading history backwards is totally misleading. The fasces were not a symbol of anything bad until twentieth century fascism. Similarly the swastika had good connotations until adopted by Adolf and his gang.

Actually reading history thoughtfully is on the other hand quite a good idea if one wishes to draw historical comparisons.
"There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance - that principle is contempt prior to investigation." Herbert Spencer
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
OsullivanB

Crucifixion was not unique to Rome. The Persians used it as did Alexander the Great and many others.

It was understood by the Romans to be a cruel and unusual punishment (to use the modern expression for an ancient understanding). Cicero described it as disgusting. It was reserved for slaves (though not the only way of executing them) pirates and rebels against the state. Crassus's crucifixion of 6,000 rebel slaves after the Spartacus revolt is (so far as I am aware) unique. I am certainly not aware of any other such example in the ancient sources.

Doubtless the Old Testament's usual prescription of death by stoning as the preferred method of capital punishment was more humane.

Masada was a mass suicide by unsuccessful rebels against the state. To be more exact, rather than endure the doubtless horrific consequences of defeat or surrender the small band of remaining rebels drew lots to decide which ten of them would kill the rest and then themselves. We prefer to hang treasonable rebels, (Sir Roger Casement and William Joyce are two examples from the last century), though the practice of drawing and quartering them first ceased only a few centuries ago.

Today the only people physically killed for public entertainment are boxers (fortunately quite rarely and this is not usually the plan - Max Baer may have been an exception to that rule). Instead we bait and damage them emotionally in reality shows.

Gladiators often survived even when they lost a fight. Many Romans found the whole thing repellent anyway, rather as I find boxing.
"There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance - that principle is contempt prior to investigation." Herbert Spencer
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Derekap
Member Avatar

valley boy. How do you think we should stopped and eventually overcome by peaceful means the Nazi German invasion of the rest of Europe and North Africa? Also Fascist Italy's invasion of Albania, Greece and North Africa?
Edited by Derekap, Thursday, 19. July 2012, 20:32.
Derekap
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
paul

Am I to assume that most of you agree with the UK having a nucleur deterant?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rose of York
Member Avatar
Administrator
I agree that for as long as other nations that have a record of taking over other countries by force, since 1900, or attemting or making serious threats to do that, have nuclear weapons, the UK must have them, as a deterrent.
Keep the Faith!

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Anne-Marie

paul
Sunday, 22. July 2012, 18:36
Am I to assume that most of you agree with the UK having a nucleur deterant?
Politically, the advantage of the weapons is the negotiating strength they buy;
The disadvatages are that they cost a fortune and (in Britain's case) we don't actually control them, needing American permission to use them - so what's the point of us paying for them?
Anne-Marie
FIAT VOLUNTAS DEI
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rose of York
Member Avatar
Administrator
By paying towards our defense, we have some control. Americans came here during World War II. When they had the need for bases in our country during the Cold War, we provided. Friends look after each other.
Keep the Faith!

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
OsullivanB

So what should the British government have done in 1939?
"There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance - that principle is contempt prior to investigation." Herbert Spencer
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Clare
Member Avatar
Putting the "Fun Dame" into Fundamentalist
OsullivanB
Wednesday, 18. July 2012, 23:56
While we do not know exactly which scriptures Jesus would have known ...
Eh?

He knew them all!
S.A.G.

Motes 'n' Beams blog

Join in the Fun Trivia Quiz!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
OsullivanB

Not necessarily. Apart from any other question, it depends in part of what is meant by "all".
"There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance - that principle is contempt prior to investigation." Herbert Spencer
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Penfold
Member Avatar

paul
Sunday, 22. July 2012, 18:36
Am I to assume that most of you agree with the UK having a nucleur deterant?
No, with the end of the Cold War any justification the UK had for retaining a nuclear deterrent also came to an end. Who do we now deter by holding on to them, no one. I think the cost is unjustified and has been the cause of the destruction of the conventional forces that are needed to secure our National Safety, both at home and abroard, and to fulfil our treaty obligations to Commonwealth and NATO allies.


Nuclear weapons as a deterrent worked against the Soviet Block who new the game we were in but it will not work against China or the other emerging nuclear powers in the Middle East and Asia. It is time to lay them aside.

http://www.acronym.org.uk/docs/0901/doc03.htm#01
read the article by Field Marshal Lord Bramall
General Lord Ramsbotham
General Sir Hugh Beach
Edited by Penfold, Monday, 23. July 2012, 13:56.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
paul

it could be argued that retaining a nucleur deterant has maintained the peace. Are you prepared to gamble the nation's security with nucleur disarmament, the government isn't and neither am I. The term niavety comes to mind!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · General Catholic Discussion · Next Topic »
Add Reply