Terri

Edmund Stoiber(CSU), the German chancellor candidate of the opposition for the upcoming elections in September, is recently alleged to have said that after he read Hilter's 'Mein Kampf', he couldn't for the life of him imagine how anyone (including his own father) couldn't have seen through the madness of Hilter's theories! Such was Hilter's genius at deception, playing on the human need for power and a feeling of superiority.

Hilter was probably a charming psychopath but what excuse does someone in this day have for adopting his views, eg. the neo-Nazis? Aren't all right wing extremists selling the same stuff in a somewhat milder form? Moral of the story : The devil is real and therefore hatred is real. Hatred needs a victim, therefore it takes on a cloak that calls itself all sorts of names, that is all.

Priya,

No you didn't give me any negative impressoins at all! I'm sorry if my post sounded like it had. I didn't mean to offend but only to express my view on the matter.

Remember, this is email, can't use voiceand non-verbals. Be patient with me if I came on too strong.

jon

Jon

Thanks for telling me you didn't get the wrong impression. Even though English is not my mother tongue, it is the language of my thoughts and feelings you know and therefore it would be dreadful if I couldn't express myself correctly in the language I happen to know best.

Don't worry about the rest. I don't get offended if I'm corrected. In fact I love a good argument, love to learn new things by being corrected, as long as the person refers to facts, appeals to commonsense, logic, reason... and of course faith if it is religious matters we are talking about.

Moral of the story : The devil is real and therefore hatred is real. Hatred needs a victim, therefore it takes on a cloak that calls itself all sorts of names, that is all.

I'd say you are right. What makes my heart ache is that people get caught up in it in the first stages without truly realizing what's going on behind the scenes or higher up the ladder.

In the context of WW II, I wish to mention the many unsung German heros, ordinary people who risked their lives by hiding Jews in their houses/farms; German heros who ended up being killed for resisting Hilter. One of the greatest German heros that the world knows in that context is Willy Brandt, who resisted the Nazis from the beginning; the German who pleaded that the world not mistake the average German for a Nazi; he wanted the ordinary German to be freed from the rule of the Nazis. Willy Brandt (SPD) resisted the Nazi regime by non-violent means in Oslo/Norway by encouraging the Germans to opppose the regime; lost his German citizenship; allowed himself to be arrested in a Norwegian soldier's uniform by the Nazis. Yet in the end only the combined show of strength from the Allied forces, the lesser of the two evils, stopped Hilter.

FOOTNOTE/AFTERTHOUGHT

The more leftist version of the currently ruling SPD opposed Hilter as a political party from the start.

ANOTHER AFTERTHOUGHT

German politics aside, I just happen to remember someone else who resorted to lesser evil to free His people. He sent plagues, killed their first born, parted the waves to let His people pass and then drowned those who followed them in order to stop them from escaping. Finally He sent HIS son, not another man's son, not the poor man's son, to die for the many. Guess who?

Ahh, priya, you're really opening the floodgates here when you try to make the point that God used violence to further the advancement of the Jewish nation. Beware of biblical scholars who will call you on that interpretation.

Terri, I think you're reading the Just War theory correctly, even with regard to its implications for legitimate self-defense. Remember, all, it only "kicks in" when all efforts at non-violent resolution have been exhausted.

One reason I raised the question of its relevance is that it makes mention of the use of weaponry that doesn't indiscriminately kill innocent civilians, and many have wondered whether that's possible in this day and age--especially when nuclear weapons are considered.

One reason I raised the question of its relevance is that it makes mention of the use of weaponry that doesn't indiscriminately kill innocent civilians, and many have wondered whether that's possible in this day and age--especially when nuclear weapons are considered.

Hmmmmm you know?...I hadn't thought of it in that context. I was thinking more in general terms. That IS a very good question and in thinking about it, I'm not sure it IS possible to keep from killing the innocents indiscriminately. Heck..we did that at Hiroshama and Nagasaki(sp?)..well goodness..is there any war where we HAVEN'T done that? Maybe before atomic and hydrogen bombs? Okay...even then?..didn't raiders pillage and plunder and attack women and children..as far back as the beginning of time? Mercy..that brings up the question of whether there has EVER been a just war...yikes!

What do you think? Now the lil wheel in my brain is turning rapidly on this one!

Phil

I give you two cents for answering my quiz question right.

As to the Biblical scholars, they are welcome to call on me. When we have run out of arguments, then you know what I'm going to do next...use the lesser of the two evils of course!

Must I remind everyone that the He who used the lesser of the two evils, first tried all non-violent means many many times? Didn't He send many Prophets, send Moses repeatedly to warn what would happen? Please note: God was trying to free the weak, oppressed people and NOT a rich powerful oppressor. Why He sent HIS ONLY SON - that was the only way HE Himself could come, the Father and Son being one.

Priya, I don't think there's any doubt that the Old Testament presents us with a God who doesn't mind seeing violence used to help the Jews become established in their land, and to purge the religion of heresy. This sort of thing doesn't seem to be anywhere in sight in the New Testament, however, and it's not really until Augustine's "Just War Theory," articulated as Rome was being sacked, that the idea of Christians serving in the military became somewhat justifiable--as a lessor of two evils.

Terri, the issue of civilian losses is one of the most difficult points to use these days in support of Just War Theory, especially when nuclear weapons are considered. For what emerges from a nuclear holocaust is not likely to be a world that is preferable to that obtained in surrender to the foe. Of course, the idea is to prevent things from getting so out of hand, and that's where the principle of mutually assured destruction comes in. By possessing a nuclear arsenal that can be used on an enemy that uses it on us, what is assured is that they won't benefit much from it either. Not that this matters much to terrorists, however.

The U.S. development of "smart weapons" actually helped to restore endorsements of just war principles, as these weapons are more likely to succeed in hitting military targets with minimum collateral damage. They're not perfect, of course, as we've seen too many times in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Yes, I'm aware that some of this seems quite distant from Gospel principles, but the question of what to do in the face of an aggressor who does not respond to non-violent resistance and who is willing to use violence to assault individuals, groups, or nations is one that just won't go away, will it?

Yes, I'm aware that some of this seems quite distant from Gospel principles, but the question of what to do in the face of an aggressor who does not respond to non-violent resistance and who is willing to use violence to assault individuals, groups, or nations is one that just won't go away, will it?

Actually..though this may seem distant from the Gospel principles, it seems from scripture that we shouldn't really even question the fact that we are going to have wars.

Mar 13:7 And when ye shall hear of wars and rumours of wars, be ye not troubled: for such things must needs be; but the end shall not be yet. (Jesus speaking)

It struck me that this verse says "MUST needs be" (emphasis mine). So apparently in order for things to proceed according to the plan God has for this world, leading up to the end of this age, the wars are something that indeed has to take place. Though it doesn't mean that we are to be overly willing to engage in war, it seems to indicate that this is one of those things that just "is" going to be. You know a fella on tv who was at some kind of conference here while back (pardon my ignorance on just exactly WHAT conference.lol) stated that if we look at history, all the major wars we've been in, if you trace them out, go all the way back to the aid of the Jews. He mentioned how WW1 and WW2 came about and how ultimately, they could be traced back to the protection of Israel....thereby achieving God's plan for the people of Israel. I hadn't thought of it and I certainly wish now that I'd paid closer attention to how he mapped it out, but at any rate, there is a Divine plan..that's for sure. Now, I know some believe that we have the power to alter how things go in that plan, but I'm not one of em...I believe that the plan will prevail as it's supposed to because God will use whatever the will of mankind brings forth in order to "mold" it to achieve His plan. I know that's a whole other subject, but I guess, my point is that, yes..we definitely need wisdom, but we must also realize that in the greater scheme of things, we are already forwarned that wars will be until the end of time. It's a very hard thing to watch happen...and maybe that's the whole idea..maybe the horrors of war are SUPPOSED to make us stop and think, develop new ways to end controversies, and truly use violence as a last resort. It's one of those things that there sure doesn't seem to be an easy answer to.

Phil

You know only too well that I write as a Christian who believes that Jesus came to fulfil the prophecies of the Old Testament. Too bad that most Jews don't want to partake of the feast and freedom that Jesus born in their midst brought to the whole of mankind.

For me the geographical Israel does not have that much meaning. Didn't Jesus tell the Samaritan woman that the mountain on which they worshipped didn't matter very much, God wanted to be worshipped in Spirit and in Truth?

For me the people of God referred to in the New Testament are those who accept Jesus Christ, people scattered the world over, not to Jews in particular or to those limited to the geographical location of Israel.

I refer to Revelations chapter 7:9-17. "There before me was a great multitude that no-one could count, from every nation, tribe, people and language standing before the throne and in front of the Lamb..."Salvation belongs to our God, who sits on the throne, and to the Lord."..."These are they who have come out of the great tribulation; they have washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb. Therefore, "they are before the throne of God and serve him day and night in his temple; and he who sits on the throne will spread his tent over them. Never again will they hunger; never again will they thirst. The sun will not beat upon them, nor any scorching heat. For the Lamb at the centre of the throne will be their shepherd; he will lead them to springs of living water. And God will wipe away every tear from their eyes."

From what I understood, Jesus said that His Kingdom was not of this world, He warned His disciples from making the mistaking of seeking worldly power. Didn't Jesus say, give to Caeser what belongs to Caeser and to God what belongs to God? In saying that I understand that He didn't mean to do away with worldly kings. So I take it that Jesus implied it the duty of the worldly kings to do their work by engaging in just wars if need be.

So I as Christian, not a politician by calling, I would not want to impose the Sermon on the Mount on the politicians in dealing with oppressors or invaders. I would be content to let Caeser be Caeser and pray that Caeser may be as Christian as he can in the discharge of his duties towards his own country and those weak and oppressed ones who cry out for his help.

I suppose all this teaching got mixed up in Europe when Kings became Christians as a result of which Christians began to get the idea that probably Christians ought to become kings?

Was it as a result of politics and Christianity becoming so intermingled that Augustine had to work out theories about just war by Christians?

quote:

Originally posted by priya:
[qb]Was it as a result of politics and Christianity becoming so intermingled that Augustine had to work out theories about just war by Christians? [/qb]

As has happened so many times, this was a new situation--one not explicitly addressed in the Gospel nor the early Church. Early Christians were a persecuted minority with no political power nor access to military might. Whether Roman converts should serve in the military, or just how far to go with "render to Caeser" was not always clear. Emperor worship was of course forbidden, even though Caesar required it. Military service was neither forbidden nor condemned, and it's possible that Christian soldiers crucified other Christians for being Christians--a most distasteful "rendering to Caesar," no doubt.

After Constantine's conversion in the early 4th C. AD, Christianity was the state religion and the obligation of Christians to military service became closely identified with protecting the Christian state. Augustine struggled with this, especially in the context of the Empire being assaulted by various groups who raped and pillaged. What was the just and loving thing to do? The "Just War Theory" was his reply, and this was more informed by Natural Law than Gospel principles. But as the Church accepted Natural Law as an important source of guidance on ethical issues, it wasn't viewed as "man's way" or caving in to political power. That's still the case with regard to the Church's view of natural law.

Only, where does that leave the Gospel, and some of Jesus' explicit teachings on non-violence? Did Jesus intend this as an absolute in all circumstances--non-violence is so essentially linked with agape that you can't have one without the other? Does Natural Law help to clarify some of these questions?

My personal reply, here, is to defer to the wisdom of the Catholic Church and its hundreds of years of struggle with this issue. I am aware of peace traditions in Christianity which emphasize the non-violent teachings over and above what Natural Law permits, but I think they are struggling to articulate how non-violence could have succeeded in opposing Hitler, or terrorism. Perhaps it could have, but some of their assumptions--namely, that violence always leads to more violence and instability--just don't hold up. Look at Germany and Japan now; we're at peace with them, they're prosperous, and the world is a much better place for having stopped Hitler. That's just undeniable, and that happened because of violent resistance.

Phil

Phil

Thank you for that clarification. You are right in mentioning that the Catholic Church (in spite of the big blunders in has committed in its long history), has gained much wisdom, has much to teach, as a result of its long struggle with such issues. But no one is finished with learning, not even the Catholic Church.

Fr. Bede Griffiths was of the opinion that one can never know on this side of eternity whether one has made the perfect choice on any issue, as good and evil are intermingled here and the power of Satan to decieve even at the highest levels is so real and great. He liked to think that good was always mixed up with some evil for that reason but God could work good out of the greatest evil. He said that at times it was necessary to endure evil for the sake of the good that would come out it, just as Jesus endured death for a greater good. He felt therefore that the intention was very important, the desire to do good without a selfish motive or hidden agenda. God honours such a intention and makes the best out of it even if at the human level it is never done perfectly.

You were right in mentioning a classic example, the good done by violent resistence used to stop Hitler, to stop Milosevic, now to stop terrorists, in spite of the collateral damage. I'm sure God will honour that good intention and work out the best, in spite of the imperfections at the human level.

Priya, there's no doubting Fr. Bede's wisdom on this matter, as on so many others. Thanks for sharing this with us.

Fr. Bede Griffiths was of the opinion that one can never know on this side of eternity whether one has made the perfect choice on any issue, as good and evil are intermingled here and the power of Satan to decieve even at the highest levels is so real and great. He liked to think that good was always mixed up with some evil for that reason but God could work good out of the greatest evil. He said that at times it was necessary to endure evil for the sake of the good that would come out it, just as Jesus endured death for a greater good. He felt therefore that the intention was very important, the desire to do good without a selfish motive or hidden agenda. God honours such a intention and makes the best out of it even if at the human level it is never done perfectly.

Powerful and well said. Gracias, Priya.
Deo Gracias,
jb

hi... been away for awhile becoming a grandma.....(grinning broadly)

Reading the posts about WWII a thought keeps nibbling away and that is the reason why we and others became involved in the first place. It is easy to justify our involvement in light of what we know now - yet the atrocities, the holocaust is not the reason the world opposed Hitler at the time. We did not fight to save the Jews but to save ourselves, our nations and our territory.... our national soverignty. Would we have opposed Hitler and his policies had he not invaded other countries? How long did it take for the reports of the atrocities to bring us to action or voice... even within the church itself? There were those who opposed Hitler from the beginning both within and without Germany but until his policies threatened us personally, we sat back and did nothing.

Another example - in Afghanistan the Taliban have been ruling for years, terrorists have been plying their trade all around the world but until we were directly affected - our people our interests we did nothing.

"He felt therefore that the intention was very important, the desire to do good without a selfish motive or hidden agenda." Is there ever not a hidden agenda - a selfish interest? Is there really anything as a just war? Yet, could it be that these selfish motives, these hidden agendas are what are ultimately used to bring God's plan to fruition?

If life gives you lemons.... make lemonade.

Peace,
Wanda

The selfish motive, the hidden agenda is the evil mixed up with the good. If that is the best God gets from us human beings, what can He do? He tries to do His best anyway.

Wanda

Welcome back and congratulations on becoming a grandmother! How lucky you are to have a bundle of joy, a taste of heaven within your home!

Wanda wrote:
In Afghanistan the Taliban have been ruling for years, terrorists have been plying their trade all around the world but until we were directly affected - our people our interests we did nothing.

I don't think anyone ever said that the war in Afghanistan was fought to free the people of Afghanistan from the Taliban. Afghanistan was targeted because it gave protection to Al-quaida and served as the training ground for most of Osama-bin-Laden's terrorists. If Afghanistan had given up Osama-bin-Laden as demanded, there would have been no reason for recent war in Afghanistan. To stop terrorists who had begun terrorising the whole world, attacked successfully nothing less than the Pentagon, that is surely a case where self-defense is justified, don't you think?

As for the term 'just war', I do not deny that any war involves violence. It is only in the reasoning behind the use of violence that there is a difference and therefore it is referred to as the lesser of the two evils. The reason behind the use of violence could be just as in the case of self-defense or to stop an aggressor or oppressor. But no invader or oppressor can claim that his cause is just.

As to stopping Hitler, even if it was done only as a means of self-defence against Nazis and not primarily to help the Jews, it is still a war of self-defence from which the Jews profited as a side-effect. Too bad if the motive wasn't so noble after all, but well, that is the best the world could come up with and God made the best out of it.

"Too bad if the motive wasn't so noble after all, but well, that is the best the world could come up with and God made the best out of it."

My point exactly..... we do the best we can with our limited knowledge and understanding... and then or maybe at the same time, God takes over and makes of our bumblings as he wishes.
In the end isn't whether or not a war is just determined more by its outcome than by our reasons for fighting it? I am brought to mind of the answer of one of the prophets... sorry can't remember which one, when questioned by the king as to how he could tell if what the prophet spoke was true or not. The prophet told him... follow my counsel and see what happens. While this does speak more to trusting the messenger... it also reminds us that often we have to do what we think is best and see what happens. In a world that is looking for the sure thing, it is not an easy path to follow.
Peace,
Wanda

Wanda, you wrote:

'it also reminds us that often we have to do what we think is best and see what happens.'

Wanda, how much in need of that consolation I'm today! By expressing what I thought was best on another forum (Kundalini and Psychic Attack), I have angered some!!! Let's see what God does with my good intention!

In the end isn't whether or not a war is just determined more by its outcome than by our reasons for fighting

Welcome back indeed, Wanda.

I hope the answer to the question you ask is "No." At least that's the way it's supposed to be.

Re. Taliban/Al Qaeda, I think you made a good point about their mischief being known for years, but such is the case for Iraq now as well. You need a better reason than knowledge that the other group is up to no good to go to war with them. The just war theory doesn't even "kick in" until all options for non-violent resolution have been exhausted. Generally, it takes some act of aggression from the "other" to precipitate this determination.

After Pearl Harbor Day, it became clear that the Japanese had aggressive intentions against the U.S., and that ongoing efforts to maintain peace peace with them were not going to work. Same goes for 9/11, I believe. The fact that we've won those wars is not what makes them just, but that we had a right to self-defense after hostilities were taken. That's how I see it, at least.