[magisterium]

Stay in denial if you like. There are whole books on this subject that quote at length Allied commanders, from Eisenhower to Nimitz to Mac Arthur, to quite the opposite effect.

Regardless, how can anyone say that modern warfare methodology doesn't virtually constitute an inherent war crime? Even with the best of initial intentions, all modern combatants seem to be incapable of not escalating to very morally shaky tactics in pretty short order. Gone are the days when even defensive warfare could even potentially be directed solely at combatants. But this is due to tactical choices, not inherent issues concerning legitimate self-defense. Modern warfare, as practiced for at least 100 years, is virtually incapable of being conducted in a moral fashion. I believe that everyone willingly partaking of the blood-lust that leads to atrocities will have to answer for them. I certainly believe that everyone involved in the decision to use atomic weapons against civilian populations in an already-defeated Japan, having already met his Maker, was, shall we say, rendered "uncomfortably speechless" at that portion of his particular judgment. Maybe God was more merciful to them than they were to their victims, but I'm glad that I definitely won't be put in the same hot seat for those same actions! I have more than enough to answer for already!

This is the Religion Forum. I am interested in hearing a religiously-based defense of the deliberate killing of civilians in wartime, from a Christian perspective. One that would make Jesus proud to give full approbation to it. I strongly suspect that there will be no such defense forthcoming that does not engage in disingenuous mumbo-jumbo.

[Harmless Teddy Bear]

I prefer to listen to what the Japanese themselves have to say. And they say that they were not ready to surrender.

[Basilides]

Ah there’s the issue isn’t it:

“I certainly believe that everyone involved in the decision to use atomic weapons against civilian populations in an already-defeated Japan..”

It may have been an inevitably-defeated Japan, but not one willing to surrender unconditionally...and there is absolutely no evidence that before August 6th Suzuki’s War Cabinet would have voted to surrender unless:

1. No occupation
2. No war trials by the allies
3. Emporer is left untouched

Please keep your delusional lies to yourself...regardless of your “Christian” intentions oh Pharisee...

[762X51]

This is the Religion Forum. I am interested in hearing a religiously-based defense of the deliberate killing of civilians in wartime, from a Christian perspective.

Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy everything that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys. 1 Samuel 15:3

I am drawing no parallels between WWII and God's commandment to Saul to destroy the Amalekites. I am merely answering the question you asked; "From a religiously-based point of view, when is it acceptable to kill innocent people?" The answer is apparently; When God deems it so. As for the "Christian perspective" part of your question, (since this was before Jesus' time on earth) I can only imagine that what His Father found necessary so would He.

[xone]

This is the Religion Forum. I am interested in hearing a religiously-based defense of the deliberate killing of civilians in wartime, from a Christian perspective. One that would make Jesus proud to give full approbation to it.

I suggest you take that up with Christ himself as you look to the instructions given to the Israelites in regards to the capture of the Promised Land.