War is the ultimate embodiment of human suffering on a collective scale. There is nothing just or grand about it. Wars aren't fought for justice, only necessity.
So should have Hitler for example been allowed to take over what he wanted without military resistance?
I just said wars are fought out of necessity. Hitler was attempting to expand his country. The only way to do that was to invade neighboring lands, so thus it became necessary for Hitler to take over "what he wanted" and it became necessary for sovereign nations to defend their territory. 'Just' is only a matter of perspective. There is no just and unjust, there's only the winners and the losers.
The strict conditions for legitimate defense by military force require rigorous consideration. The gravity of such a decision makes it subject to rigorous conditions of moral legitimacy. At one and the same time: * the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain; * all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective; * there must be serious prospects of success; * the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modern means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition. These are the traditional elements enumerated in what is called the "just war" doctrine. The evaluation of these conditions for moral legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good. http://www.catholic.com/library/Just_War_Doctrine_1.asp Part of why I am Catholic... H-Bomb---not Just War. WWII arguably a Just War.
Wars in which God takes a side, not wars where men just say God is on our side but wars where God really has taken a side. Armageddon would be an example of a just war.
Interesting. If we think about how Jesus handled the situation with Rome. The Romans were taking over the promised land, destroying the Temple, and bringing in paganism. It seems if he really thought of himself as the king of the Jews he would have done what the rebels were trying to do on Masada and resist the Romans militarily, yet he decided to take the path of weakness. Peter cut off the ear of the Roman in defense and Jesus responded by healing it. And now 2000 years later the Roman Empire has been gone for 1700 years and movement Jesus started continues to expand. Who won Jesus or Rome? I just can't imagine Jesus supporting violence even if it seems logical and just.
it's odd how my grandpa made war on the Sac Indians , relocated them to Oklahoma then named the town after them . the town square of Sac City was to be located near the Raccoon River , and there , several old ceremonial mounds were looted and leveled so they could build the Sac County Courthouse . but the first public building was a little church .
a peace god endures - all christians have heard love thy enemy . have you met an opportunity to prove this good and true . it's not that i suggest you need an enemy .... just if you do , you may well discover this peace action is quite sophisticated . i sure have met authoritarian dominators along my path who treat me as enemy . make em cry .
Jesus taught to preach good news to the poor and uplift the broken hearted. That's the way the Kingdom of God is meant to be spread not by stealing land and mowing over grave sits. I know that's the way the Christian religion has been spread in the past.
