You wrote: "Fortunately, I don't find the Catholic Church to be a reliable reference in the case of war, based upon its history."
Do you usually determine the truth of a moral teaching based on whether the personnel of the teaching institution are sinless? That makes no sense. If that were the case, nothing could EVER be said to be right or wrong, since those who are teachers and lawmakers (the church, the government, your own parents and grandparents) --- all have sinned or violated in some way in the past.
There are people who say that, of course: but it's an argument for moral nihilism; and we don't permit our children to say that to us--- though we are sinners -- now do we?
You wrote: "In the case of H/N, there was a warning, so a claim of innocence would be hard to justify.
That is erroneous for two reasons. First, the fact that huge numbers of people are unable to get out of a doomed city doesn't make them guilty of anything. Guilty of what? What are you thinking of?
Second, in the context of life-and-death decision in general, the word "innocent" doesn't mean "free of all sin like Jesus Christ." It means a "non-aggressor." If it meant "free of all sin," then everyone would have license to kill everyone else, I suppose, even the babies, since we are all tainted with the sin of Adam.
In the context of war, what the moral law requires is that we do not deliberately kill noncombatants. There is no collective guilt which encompasses the whole civilian population and deprives them of their immunity as noncombatants. It is understood that in war civilians do get killed in a way that is both foreseeable and accidental: but the difference between an honorable soldier and a murderer is that an honorable soldier tries to take effective steps to shield civilians from harm as much as possible, whereas a murderer will deliberately kill noncombatants as a means to an end, or will simply destroy everything indiscriminately.
You wrote: "There also was the edict from God to the nation of Israel to kill the Canaanites. Presumably, He found the children and old folks of them to be worthy of death or as culpable as the rest of them."
Your citing of the God-ordered destruction of the Canaanites is inapt for two reasons. First, God has absolute sovereignty over life and death, and He alone has the authority to cause or require the death of a person for His own reasons. That was why the incident where God commanded Abraham to bind Isaac and present him as a human sacrifice has such enormous significance in the Hebrew Scriptures. (1) Because God is sovereign, He has the authority to issue such a command, and (2) Because God is good, He did not permit Abraham to kill Isaac.
This provides no general warrant for parents sacrificing their children. In fact, it is generally forbidden by the commandments against shedding innocent blood.
In a similar manner, God has the authority to command the death of the Amalekites. In fact, every human being will die. Fatality rate 100% across the planet and throughout history. This is God's prerogative. But it is not a general warrant for killing. Quite the contrary. This shows up the complete authority of God to make such decisions; and the utter unfitness of mortal man to do so.
In any case, Jesus Christ goes quite beyond this, inasmuch as His commandment is "Love thy enemy." I hadn't brought this into the discussion, but it would seem to have some inhibiting effect on incinerating your enemy's babies.
If I, personally, thought I heard the voice of 'God' ordering me to kill an innocent person, I would assume I was experiencing a psychotic episode and go straightaway to a mental hospital. I fully expect that you, as a reasonable man, would do the same.
You wrote: "At any rate, your statements leave no room for forgiveness, so the assurity of hell rings hollow."
Once again, I did not say anything about the "assurity of hell." Far from it! What I did say was: "This does not specify anyone by name who is thereby "damned." But it does show the shedding of innocent blood to be a damnable offense.
I pray every single day for a merciful judgment for all.
"Once again, I did not say anything about the "assurity of hell."
Your words.
'They make life hell for others; they create a kind of hell inside of themselves; and then they get hell hereafter as well.'
'Do you usually determine the truth of a moral teaching based on whether the personnel of the teaching institution are sinless?'
No, but I consider the source when the institution has shown itself to be influenced by worldly considerations and currently preaches in some places a non-Biblical approach. ie liberation theology influenced by Marxism.
'First, the fact that huge numbers of people are unable to get out of a doomed city doesn't make them guilty of anything. Guilty of what? What are you thinking of?'
You don't support the contention that the people of these two cities both supported materially or by their acquiescence the activity of their govt. I do. As a result of this impasse, you shall always claim their innocence while I maintain their partial if not total complicity. They had a chance to leave, didn't, reaped the reward of a bad decision.
I'll grant you the points re God and the Israelites, I made them because you seemed to imply that total annihilation is never justified. Regarding Isaac, since God stopped Abraham, your point about child sacrifice is a little hyperbolic.
I am glad that the bombings of H/N forced the Japanese to surrender with terms favorable to the Allies. Greater good was sustained, more lived as a result of those decisions. As we have seen, many on this board might not have been born without their use compelling the surrender, and Japan may never had arisen but for the destruction they caused. I will gladly trade the children of those men who avoided death in the proposed invasion for the residents of the two cities in lockstep with their fanatical and murderous regime.