Arguably, A Just War

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='hot stuff' post='1158301' date='Jan 7 2007, 07:07 PM']
It was one of the laws of Moses to stone an adulterous woman. The Jews believed that the laws were inspired from God since he is the lawgiver.

And again, you still don't want to respond to the fact that you are dissenting with two popes and the Vatican.
[/quote]


The Law of Moses, also allowed divorce. God tolerated many things for which He never gave an official approval. However God as recorded by the Old Testament did in fact order first strikes and preemptive wars on the enemies of God and/or His people, which have little to nothing to do with The Law of Moses.

I am loyal to the dogmatic and infallibly teachings of Holy Mother Church.

Because I show how the Iraq war could be just, does not make me a dissenter of Holy Mother Church.

[Jaime]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' post='1158361' date='Jan 7 2007, 07:01 PM']
The Law of Moses, also allowed divorce. God tolerated many things for which He never gave an official approval. However God as recorded by the Old Testament did in fact order first strikes and preemptive wars on the enemies of God and/or His people, which have little to nothing to do with The Law of Moses.

I am loyal to the dogmatic and infallibly teachings of Holy Mother Church.

Because I show how the Iraq war could be just, does not make me a dissenter of Holy Mother Church.
[/quote]


Yes the laws of Moses also allowed for divorce. And the laws of Moses are held to be divinely willed by God. (seriously, ask around) So if that's the case, why isn't it the case today? Perhaps Jesus came to establish the new law? hmmm...

And as far as ordering first strikes and preemptive wars ordered by God, care to give your example of this? I'd be curious to see. I can't recall off the top of my head where that happened and it was preemptive or first strike. ( I remember a lot of reclaiming land but not the Israelites being oppressors. But I could be wrong)

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='hot stuff' post='1158395' date='Jan 7 2007, 08:41 PM']
Yes the laws of Moses also allowed for divorce. And the laws of Moses are held to be divinely willed by God. (seriously, ask around) So if that's the case, why isn't it the case today? Perhaps Jesus came to establish the new law? hmmm...[/quote]

Divorce has never been divinely willed by God, divorce is against Divine Law now and has always been so, even then. Christ points this out in Matthew

"Have ye not read, that he who made man [color="#FF0000"]from the beginning[/color], Made them male and female? And he said: 5 For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and they two shall be in one flesh.

6 Therefore now they are not two, but one flesh. [color="#FF0000"]What therefore God hath joined together, [u]let no man[/u] put asunder.[/color] 7 They say to him: Why then did Moses command to give a bill of divorce, and to put away? 8 He saith to them: [color="#FF0000"]Because Moses[/color] by reason of the hardness of [color="#FF0000"][u]your[/u][/color] heart permitted you to put away your wives: [color="#FF0000"]but from the beginning it was not so[/color]."

[quote name='hot stuff' post='1158395' date='Jan 7 2007, 08:41 PM']
And as far as ordering first strikes and preemptive wars ordered by God, care to give your example of this? I'd be curious to see. I can't recall off the top of my head where that happened and it was preemptive or first strike. ( I remember a lot of reclaiming land but not the Israelites being oppressors. But I could be wrong)
[/quote]

I am surprised you do not recall the "First Strike" by God Himself on the Pharao's oncoming army after the Exodus from Egypt. Before the army of the Pharao can attack the Israelites, God strikes first.

[quote]Exodus 14:26-"And [u]the Lord[/u] said to Moses: Stretch forth they hand over the sea, that the waters may come again upon the Egyptians, upon their chariots and horsemen. 27 And when Moses had stretched forth his hand towards the sea, it returned at the first break of day to the former place: and as the Egyptians were fleeing away, the waters came upon them, and the Lord shut them up in the middle of the waves. 28 And the waters returned, and covered the chariots and the horsemen of all the army of Pharao, who had come into the sea after them, neither did there so much as one of them remain. 29 But the children of Israel marched through the midst of the sea upon dry land, and the waters were to them as a wall on the right hand and on the left: 30 And the Lord delivered Israel on that day out of the hands of the Egyptians.

31 And they saw the Egyptians dead upon the sea shore, and the mighty hand that the Lord had used against them: and the people feared the Lord, and they believed the Lord, and Moses his servant."[/quote]

and

[quote]Exodus 15:3-5 "The Lord is as a man of war, Almighty is his name. 4 Pharao's chariots and his army he hath cast into the sea: his chosen captains are drowned in the Red Sea. 5 The depths have covered them, they are sunk to the bottom like a stone."[/quote]

Alot of the Old testament wars where first strikes and preemptive, and commanded by God Himself. But Deuteronomy comes to mind, God orders His people to destroy the nations of Hethite, Gergezite, Amorrhite, Chanannite, Pherezite, Hevite, and Jebusite. All of which had not attacked in any way to the best of my memory the Israelites. Even so God orders the Israelites to strike those people first, or preemptively, and they obey.

[quote]Deuteronomy 7:1-10 "When the Lord thy God shall have brought thee into the land, which thou art going in to possess, and shall have destroyed many nations before thee, the Hethite, and the Gergezite, and the Amorrhite, and the Chanaanite, and the Pherezite, and the Hevite, and the Jebusite, seven nations much more numerous than thou art, and stronger than thou: 2 And the Lord thy God shall have delivered them to thee, thou shalt utterly destroy them. Thou shalt make no league with them, nor shew mercy to them: 3 Neither shalt thou make marriages with them. Thou shalt not give thy daughter to his son, nor take his daughter for thy son: 4 For she will turn away thy son from following me, that he may rather serve strange gods, and the wrath of the Lord will be kindled, and will quickly destroy thee. 5 But thus rather shall you deal with them: Destroy their altars, and break their statues, and cut down their groves, and burn their graven things.

6 Because thou art a holy people to the Lord thy God. The Lord thy God hath chosen thee, to be his peculiar people of all peoples that are upon the earth. 7 Not because you surpass all nations in number, is the Lord joined unto you, and hath chosen you, for you are the fewest of any people: 8 But because the Lord hath loved you, and hath kept his oath, which he swore to your fathers: and hath brought you out with a strong hand, and redeemed you from the house of bondage, out of the hand of Pharao the king of Egypt. 9 And thou shalt know that the Lord thy God, he is a strong and faithful God, keeping his covenant and mercy to them that love him, and to them that keep his commandments, unto a thousand generations: 10 And repaying forthwith them that hate him, so as to destroy them, without further delay immediately rendering to them what they deserve."
[/quote]

[Socrates]

[quote name='hot stuff' post='1157849' date='Jan 7 2007, 12:14 AM']
Hey Soc if you choose to dissent from the Vatican, the current pope and the former pope, that's your decision.

But it doesn't make the war just
[/quote]
The Pope said there may be a legitimate diversity of opionion regrading the waging of wars.

A "diversity of opinion" means Catholics may legitimately debate this issue. No need to treat those who offer opposing opinions as heretics.

[quote name='hot stuff' post='1158395' date='Jan 7 2007, 08:41 PM']
Yes the laws of Moses also allowed for divorce. And the laws of Moses are held to be divinely willed by God. (seriously, ask around) So if that's the case, why isn't it the case today? Perhaps Jesus came to establish the new law? hmmm...

And as far as ordering first strikes and preemptive wars ordered by God, care to give your example of this? I'd be curious to see. I can't recall off the top of my head where that happened and it was preemptive or first strike. ( I remember a lot of reclaiming land but not the Israelites being oppressors. But I could be wrong)
[/quote]
Read the Book of Exodus. The Israelites took the Promised Land from the Canaanites.

And God does not command that which is intrinsically immoral.

Edited January 8, 2007 by Socrates

[Jaime]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' post='1158604' date='Jan 7 2007, 11:04 PM']
Divorce has never been divinely willed by God, divorce is against Divine Law now and has always been so, even then. Christ points this out in Matthew

"Have ye not read, that he who made man [color="#FF0000"]from the beginning[/color], Made them male and female? And he said: 5 For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and they two shall be in one flesh.

6 Therefore now they are not two, but one flesh. [color="#FF0000"]What therefore God hath joined together, [u]let no man[/u] put asunder.[/color] 7 They say to him: Why then did Moses command to give a bill of divorce, and to put away? 8 He saith to them: [color="#FF0000"]Because Moses[/color] by reason of the hardness of [color="#FF0000"][u]your[/u][/color] heart permitted you to put away your wives: [color="#FF0000"]but from the beginning it was not so[/color]."
I am surprised you do not recall the "First Strike" by God Himself on the Pharao's oncoming army after the Exodus from Egypt. Before the army of the Pharao can attack the Israelites, God strikes first.
and
Alot of the Old testament wars where first strikes and preemptive, and commanded by God Himself. But Deuteronomy comes to mind, God orders His people to destroy the nations of Hethite, Gergezite, Amorrhite, Chanannite, Pherezite, Hevite, and Jebusite. All of which had not attacked in any way to the best of my memory the Israelites. Even so God orders the Israelites to strike those people first, or preemptively, and they obey.
[/quote]


Sorry

Not preemptive nor first strike. You need to go back in your bible a bit guys. The land of Canaan originally was settled by Abraham (Gen13:14) for his descendants. The Israelites were reclaiming the land that they lost.

And the attack on Pharoahs men was a first strike? They were the oppressors. The Israelites were slaves. That was the first action.

[Jaime]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1158632' date='Jan 7 2007, 11:31 PM']
The Pope said there may be a legitimate diversity of opionion regrading the waging of wars.

A "diversity of opinion" means Catholics may legitimately debate this issue. No need to treat those who offer opposing opinions as heretics.

[/quote]

Typical liberal response

I didn't call you a heretic. I said you were dissenting from two popes and the Vatican

and you are

and again, it doesn't make it a just war

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='hot stuff' post='1158713' date='Jan 8 2007, 01:38 AM']
Sorry

Not preemptive nor first strike. You need to go back in your bible a bit guys. The land of Canaan originally was settled by Abraham (Gen13:14) for his descendants. The Israelites were reclaiming the land that they were thrown off of.
[/quote]


Sorry Jamie. But in fact you are talking of a different war and a different time. This "reclaiming" would have been and different war not the same.

Hundreds of years have pasted since the time of Abraham to the time of Moses, and the "reclaiming" of the Promise Land.

Therefor we are talking about to distinct wars,
1. The Israelites being removed from the Promised land.

2. Hundreds of years later the Israelites come back to the promise land, and are command to preemptively attack the enemies presently in the Promised Land.

Saying these two distinct wars are in fact one war would be like saying WWI and WWII are [u]one[/u] war. Which is not the case.

[Jaime]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' post='1158732' date='Jan 8 2007, 12:54 AM']
Sorry Jamie. But in fact you are talking of a different war and a different time. This "reclaiming" would have been and different war not the same.

Hundreds of years have pasted since the time of Abraham to the time of Moses, and the "reclaiming" of the Promise Land.

Therefor we are talking about to distinct wars,
1. The Israelites being removed from the Promised land.

2. Hundreds of years later the Israelites come back to the promise land, and are command to preemptively attack the enemies presently in the Promised Land.

Saying these two distinct wars are in fact one war would be like saying WWI and WWII are [u]one[/u] war. Which is not the case.
[/quote]

Again Knight, you're off the mark. It does not matter how long it has been since the Israelites were captured and taken away from their land. It cannot be considered a first strike to take back what was theirs originally.

It doesn't have to be one war.

Maybe you can find a working example

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='hot stuff' post='1158713' date='Jan 8 2007, 01:38 AM']
And the attack on Pharoahs men was a first strike? They were the oppressors. The Israelites were slaves. That was the first action.
[/quote]


But there was no war between the Israelites and the Egyptians when the People of God were slaves of the Egyptians. When the Israelites crossed threw the sea, they were [u]not[/u] slaves, but a free people. The oppression of the Israelites by the Egyptians was over because, the Israelites were free no longer in bondage to Pharoah. God had freed His people.

It is very clear from Exodus the Pharoah had intend to engage in war, combat, or open conflict with the Israelites. Which would have been a true war, or battle between the Israelites and Pharoahs army. However before the Egyptians could attack, God took the first strike and attacked and drowned Pharoahs army.

[Jaime]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' post='1158746' date='Jan 8 2007, 01:08 AM']
But there was no war between the Israelites and the Egyptians when the People of God were slaves of the Egyptians. When the Israelites crossed threw the sea, they were [u]not[/u] slaves, but a free people. The oppression of the Israelites by the Egyptians was over because, the Israelites were free no longer in bondage to Pharoah. God had freed His people.

It is very clear from Exodus the Pharoah had intend to engage in war, combat, or open conflict with the Israelites. Which would have been a true war, or battle between the Israelites and Pharoahs army. However before the Egyptians could attack, God took the first strike and attacked and drowned Pharoahs army.
[/quote]

Holy cow is that flimsy. You really gonna stick with that one? Custer's last stand was a first strike from the indians then?

How about another example Knight? You said that God commanded the Israelites into preemptive wars (plural) Surely you have an example that doesn't include oppressors coming back to recapture their slaves.

[Mercy me]

[quote name='hot stuff' post='1158043' date='Jan 7 2007, 10:28 AM']
Jesus didn't change it? He stopped the adulterous woman from being executed didn't he?

Do people actually think that two popes and the Vatican ignore Church history when making any proclamation about a moral issue?
[/quote]

No, He didn't but it was the Law of Moses that was chnaged not the laws of the society. He didn't say that it was wrong for a society to execute criminals. He didn't say anything about the execution of those with whom He himself was executed. That is why I said that He didn't change that teaching. Societies have that the right ot execute criminals. I am not debating the death penalty, I am just citing it as an example of where the Vatican gives an opinion.

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='hot stuff' post='1158739' date='Jan 8 2007, 01:59 AM']
Again Knight, you're off the mark. It does not matter how long it has been since the Israelites were captured and taken away from their land. It cannot be considered a first strike to take back what was theirs originally.

It doesn't have to be one war.

Maybe you can find a working example
[/quote]


Indeed it can, your logic is in error. The Israelites being removed by force of war was a past event, and different event in history, when compared to the return of the Israelites to the promised land. The first event had and beginning and an end to the event. The start would have been the Israelites and the invaders in open combat. The end to this event in history would be the Israelites losing the war and being removed from the promised land. That would have been the close or the end of that war.

Hundreds of years later, the Israelites return this was a completely different time in history and events. It would have its own unique NEW beginning and a new end. The beginning of this event, this war was a preemptive first strike in this new war, commanded by God to retake the promised land. The end of this even was the Israelites living in the promised land.

[quote name='hot stuff' post='1158753' date='Jan 8 2007, 02:21 AM']
Holy cow is that flimsy. You really gonna stick with that one? Custer's last stand was a first strike from the indians then?

How about another example Knight? You said that God commanded the Israelites into preemptive wars (plural) Surely you have an example that doesn't include oppressors coming back to recapture their slaves.
[/quote]


The Israelites were not slaves. I have given you two prefect examples it is you who has failed to proof yourself. Not I.

[rkwright]

I'm not sure that it really matters who struck first between the Israelites and whoever.... if the Vatican has said 'no' why isn't that enough??

[KnightofChrist]

That is the Israelites were not slaves at the time God protected, and attacked the Egyptians first.

[Jaime]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' post='1158763' date='Jan 8 2007, 01:36 AM']
Indeed it can, your logic is in error. The Israelites being removed by force of war was a past event, and different event in history, when compared to the return of the Israelites to the promised land. The first event had and beginning and an end to the event. The start would have been the Israelites and the invaders in open combat. The end to this event in history would be the Israelites losing the war and being removed from the promised land. That would have been the close or the end of that war.

Hundreds of years later, the Israelites return this was a completely different time in history and events. It would have its own unique NEW beginning and a new end. The beginning of this event, this war was a preemptive first strike in this new war, commanded by God to retake the promised land. The end of this even was the Israelites living in the promised land.
The Israelites were not slaves. I have given you two prefect examples it is you who has failed to proof yourself. Not I.
[/quote]

Ok let's go with your flawed logic for the moment. Then, unless you have other examples, a first strike can be justifiable under the conditions of

a huge army bearing down on you when you're trapped
you're taking back something you already own


Neither of these apply to Iraq

Now if you can find an example of the Israelites attacking a land and conquering what wasn't theirs already, you may have a point

Otherwise you're just spinning history to make your point


And you have yet to justify how you can dissent from what the Vatican has stated

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='hot stuff' post='1158772' date='Jan 8 2007, 02:41 AM']
And you have yet to justify how you can dissent from what the Vatican has stated
[/quote]

Socrates and I have not dissented from Holy Mother Church. You are stating a out right falsehood when you state otherwise. "[color="#FF0000"][b]The official Church has not declared the war in Iraq to be unjust. The determination of the justification of any particular war is outside of the prudential judgment of the Church, though she may defend certain moral principles involved in war. This judgment is left to the principle authority of the States or Countries involved, who evaluate the particular circumstances given them, acknowledge the guidance of the Church, and seek the common good known through the principles of Nature and Grace. Therefore the laity is left to legitimately support or reject this war as just or unjust, because of the difficulty involved in evaluating the circumstances and measures taken.[/b][/color]"

[url="http://www.catholicculture.org/sites/site_view.cfm?Example=6189&recnum=3056&task=showexample"]Source[/url]

Edited January 8, 2007 by KnightofChrist

[Aloysius]

The Gulf War began with Saddam Hussein invading Kuwait. For about a decade after we got him out of Kuwait, there was peace on the condition that he destroy all his WMDs and not seek any more. It is documented that he broke that promise, ergo the war resumed. That's not so much pre-emption as it is a response to an agressor who invaded Kuwait and then lied about what he did with his WMDs. anyone who breaks a condition of peace is becoming an agressor in war.

But the doctrine of pre-emption is certainly troubling on many levels. The Church's tradition does not allow strict pre-emption the way the Talmud would, and it never should. We don't have to wait for them to nuke us, but we must be provoked in some way before we attack if we wish to hold on to our Christian morality.

I see Iraq in itself as a reactive war which opened a pandora's box with its justifications for pre-emptive wars. the already slightly questionable on a level of principal Bush doctrine cannot be allowed to mutate into our invasion of any and all countries we have suspicion of.

[Jaime]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' post='1158793' date='Jan 8 2007, 03:41 AM']
Socrates and I have not dissented from Holy Mother Church. You are stating a out right falsehood when you state otherwise. "[color="#FF0000"][b]The official Church has not declared the war in Iraq to be unjust. The determination of the justification of any particular war is outside of the prudential judgment of the Church, though she may defend certain moral principles involved in war. This judgment is left to the principle authority of the States or Countries involved, who evaluate the particular circumstances given them, acknowledge the guidance of the Church, and seek the common good known through the principles of Nature and Grace. Therefore the laity is left to legitimately support or reject this war as just or unjust, because of the difficulty involved in evaluating the circumstances and measures taken.[/b][/color]"

[url="http://www.catholicculture.org/sites/site_view.cfm?Example=6189&recnum=3056&task=showexample"]Source[/url]
[/quote]

Ok let me get this straight

Catholicculture speaks for the Church but the VATICAN does not.


Let me quote again from an official representative from the Vatican

[quote]Evil Cannot Justify Evil, Says President of Council for Justice and Peace

ROME, MARCH 11, 2003 (Zenit.org).- A unilateral attack by the United States on Iraq would be a "war of aggression," says the president of the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace.

Archbishop Renato Martino contended that, contrary to what happened in 1991 with the invasion of Kuwait, on this occasion "there is no aggression and so this preventive war is, in itself, a war of aggression."

"Sept. 11 wounded all Americans terribly, but evil cannot be justified by evil," the archbishop stressed in statements to the Italian weekly newspaper Rinascita.

Archbishop Martino, for 16 years the Holy See's permanent observer to the United Nations, thinks that terrorism must be combated by addressing "the causes that produce it." [/quote]

Feel free to support the war and try to justify it. But no one can argue that a first strike doctrine (especially this one) can fall within the CCC or Just War.

You haven't shown it. You've only shown your opinion

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='hot stuff' post='1159522' date='Jan 9 2007, 12:30 AM']
Ok let me get this straight

Catholicculture speaks for the Church but the VATICAN does not.[/quote]

Trying to make a conflict where none exist does not make a conflict. Catholic Culture is not dissenting from Holy Mother Church. There is no Catholic Culture vs. Holy Mother Church debate here. The source link which I posted is a review for a website which has stated some of the many same things which you have "the pope says this, or that there for the war in unjust." I am also sure the Catholic Culture is aware of the pope's comments.

So why did they state what they did? Because it is the official teaching of Holy Mother Church. The war in Iraq [i]may[/i] very well be unjust, but so far Holy Mother Church has not officially taught it to be unjust. As Socrates has pointed out the Pope Himself has allude to this fact, "The Pope said there may be a legitimate diversity of opinion regrading the waging of wars. A "diversity of opinion" means Catholics may legitimately debate this issue." The Pope would not say such a thing if the Iraq war was or is officially unjust.

[quote name='hot stuff' post='1159522' date='Jan 9 2007, 12:30 AM']Let me quote again from an official representative from the Vatican[/quote]

The Iraq war was not and is not unilateral. The Iraq war was not a preventive war. It was ether as Aloysius points out, "The Gulf War began with Saddam Hussein invading Kuwait. For about a decade after we got him out of Kuwait, there was peace on the condition that he destroy all his WMDs and not seek any more. It is documented that he broke that promise, ergo the war resumed. That's not so much pre-emption as it is a response to an aggressor who invaded Kuwait and then lied about what he did with his WMDs. anyone who breaks a condition of peace is becoming an aggressor in war." or the was is a preemptive war, which from what I first thought is different from a preventive war.

The important distinction between preemptive war and preventive war is a preemptive war is what happens when a state targets an enemy that represents an imminent threat of attack. Iraq did pose this threat, Saddam in fact had WMD and the ability to use them against his own people and others, and we had no reason to doubt that he would since he had in the past. There was in fact a terrorist base in the north of Iraq. After 9/11 Iraq was an imminent threat, the combined threat of WMD's and Terrorist was a risk too high to take. A preventive war is what happens when a state targets an enemy before they can become an imminent threat of attack. The attack on Pearl Harbor was a preventive war.

[quote name='hot stuff' post='1159522' date='Jan 9 2007, 12:30 AM']Feel free to support the war and try to justify it. But no one can argue that a first strike doctrine (especially this one) can fall within the CCC or Just War.

You haven't shown it. You've only shown your opinion
[/quote]

God is not unjust yet He in fact called on the Israelites to first strikes against the enemies of God. And even if that was the case an injustice in particular acts of war would not necessarily make the cause itself unjust. The war in Iraq may well be in unjust, as it maybe just. In fact Holy Mother Church does not officially teach that the war is Just nor does She officially teach that it is unjust. And that is not a matter of my opinion but fact.


[quote name='Aloysius' post='1158799' date='Jan 8 2007, 05:57 AM']
The Gulf War began with Saddam Hussein invading Kuwait. For about a decade after we got him out of Kuwait, there was peace on the condition that he destroy all his WMDs and not seek any more. It is documented that he broke that promise, ergo the war resumed. That's not so much pre-emption as it is a response to an agressor who invaded Kuwait and then lied about what he did with his WMDs. anyone who breaks a condition of peace is becoming an agressor in war.

But the doctrine of pre-emption is certainly troubling on many levels. The Church's tradition does not allow strict pre-emption the way the Talmud would, and it never should. We don't have to wait for them to nuke us, but we must be provoked in some way before we attack if we wish to hold on to our Christian morality.

I see Iraq in itself as a reactive war which opened a pandora's box with its justifications for pre-emptive wars. the already slightly questionable on a level of principal Bush doctrine cannot be allowed to mutate into our invasion of any and all countries we have suspicion of.
[/quote]

Good points which I did not make, thank you. Of course preemptive wars can be dangerous, but my point is simply because a war is preemptive does not make the war unjust by default.

[Jaime]

[quote]God is not unjust yet He in fact called on the Israelites to first strikes against the enemies of God. And even if that was the case an injustice in particular acts of war would not necessarily make the cause itself unjust. The war in Iraq may well be in unjust, as it maybe just. In fact Holy Mother Church does not officially teach that the war is Just nor does She officially teach that it is unjust. And that is not a matter of my opinion but fact.
[/quote]

In fact you have yet to give an examples of God calling the Israelites to attack first. You have shown them

defending themselves
reclaiming the land that was taken from them


where are the examples of those first strike Israelites?