Mrs. Don-O, I have been a born again Christian for over 37 years, since I was a teenager.
I see that you know your Scriptures. But I am troubled by how you apply them.
In war there are few good choices. The best is to end the suffering as soon as possible. That’s why decisive victory is imperative.
War is murder, that is true. But is there righteous anger? Does the Lord use human agency to accomplish His will among men, including the rise and fall of kingdoms and empires? Absolutely.
My view is that the United States was used by God in WW2 to overcome great evil in the world and to ensure freedom would not be erased by the Fascist, Imperial, and Nazi forces.
You rightly point out in your posts that abortion is a horrible evil. I agree, because that is undeniably the shedding of innocent blood.
But I have no compunction at all about having a death penalty for murderers.
Both take a life, but one is innocent and the other is not.
The Empire of Japan was a monstrous evil. By only having 150,000 of their people die in the atomic blasts was a great mercy to them.
I know that sounds harsh, but it is reality, in my opinion. You and I can discuss and agree that we individually would not murder, but as the head of a nation in a horrible war, our decisions would be based on other criteria.
Thank you, though, for your civil replies. I am sure that it will cause many thoughtful reflections on those who read the thread.
Yours respectfully,
exit82
I too thank you for your civil and thoughtful tone, which I wish we would see a whole lot more often on FR. Your type of post is what FR is supposed to be all about: reasoning together about those most important issues of our day.
I too am a Christian, and I must assume that you and I would agree that God surpasses us infinitely in wisdom, and so deserves our obedience above all earthly things. (I don’t match this in practice, but I know what I am called to.)
“(a)In war there are few good choices. (b)The best is to end the suffering as soon as possible.”
I agree with (a). As to (b), I would say “The best is to wage it according to God’s law or -— for those who are not disciples -— according to justice as we know it by natural reason.”
“Ending the suffering” is of course important, but I would not put it at the top. The jihadis, for instance, seem to be putting Europe in a head-lock, and too many EU’s seem to want to avoid suffering simply by conceding them everything as soon as they demand it. One could minimize suffering by preemptive surrender. I do not counsel that. I counsel waging just war. I would not counsel ending the just war until the immediate aggressors are crushed.
“War is murder, that is true.”
I disagree. War is not murder. War is a righteous and honorable thing, and a warrior is a righteous and honorable man, if it is a just war.
“But is there righteous anger?”
Yes.
“Does the Lord use human agency to accomplish His will among men, including the rise and fall of kingdoms and empires?”
Yes.
[I would interject here: “Does the Lord depend on us to disobey His commands, so that His will can be achieved?”]
“My view is that the United States was used by God in WW2 to overcome great evil in the world and to ensure freedom would not be erased by the Fascist, Imperial, and Nazi forces.”
True. We had just cause to enter WWII and, to the best of our ability, to crush the Nazi military and their co-murderers to the ground.
“You rightly point out in your posts that abortion is a horrible evil. I agree, because that is undeniably the shedding of innocent blood...But I have no compunction at all about having a death penalty for murderers”
I agree.
“Both take a life, but one is innocent and the other is not.”
Right. That’s the crucial difference.
“(a)The Empire of Japan was a monstrous evil.(b) By only having 150,000 of their people die in the atomic blasts was a great mercy to them.”
(a) True.
(b) This is not morally in our hands. We have no right to deliberately annihilate civilians; we have the right -— and duty -— to annihilate their war machine.
“[As] a nation in a horrible war, our decisions would be based on other criteria.”
You assert this, but can you defend it? Has God ever said, “All commandments suspended for the duration”? I believe -—within limits -— in the separation of Church and State. I do not believe in the Separation of God from Real Life.
What reason or evidence can you offer that the most fundamental moral violation is better than physical suffering?
Exit82, I am trying to argue seriously without using unfair, grandstanding rhetoric. If I have overstated in any respect,I ask your pardon and I ask you to point it out to me so I can avoid that fault in the future.
Final question: is there any reason why we shouldn’t post both your private message, and my present reply, onto the main thread?
With sincere respect,
Mrs. Don-o