Is War Ever Justified? - Page 3 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 10-27-2005, 02:02 PM   #31
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Se7en's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: all around in the dark - everywhere
Posts: 3,531
Local Time: 04:40 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by whenhiphopdrovethebigcars
Plus, I want to make another point..

Is violence ever justifiable? I guess most, if not all of us here on Interference think that physical violence in private households, which is mainly against women, is not justified. I go as far as saying it is never justified.

You maybe think the same, but I can tell you the thousands of men have and still do try to justify their violent actions.

You think, they are not right. Violence is not justifiable in a relationship. Also when the woman grabs a gun and shoots the guy, you ask yourself, is that justified? She acted in defense, and maybe she had every right, but still, she killed a man; can that be justified?

But still you justify the most cruel, most extreme violences of all: war. And why that? Because you think the cause is just and noble . You basically think so because the media and your government tell you. If they didn´t you´d neither acknowledge there is a problem.

But our governments tell us that it is just. And we believe them. And the soldiers jump into war, happy&proud, thinking they are defending "their" country.

Man, we must be brainwashed.
i am generally in agreement with you.
__________________

__________________
Se7en is offline  
Old 10-27-2005, 02:54 PM   #32
Forum Moderator
 
yolland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 7,471
Local Time: 10:40 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by whenhiphopdrovethebigcars
The 6th commandment says thou shalt not kill.
Of course you can--and should--take the 6th commandment to mean whatever you believe God intended, as informed by your own beliefs and your own relationship with God.

BUT, just as an FYI, the Hebrew text here--lo tirtzakh--actually means "You shall not murder" (or, more literally, "Murder not!") The Hebrew for "You shall not kill" would be lo taharoq, which is not what the text says.

There were some pacifist Jewish sects during the Roman era who maintained that lo taharoq was in fact the ultimate intended meaning of this commandment, and I *think* it was from their texts that Christian tradition took its traditional "Thou shalt not kill" translation. However, today there are several Christian translations that do defer to the original, lo tirtzakh. Couldn't tell you which ones they are, though.

That aside, I generally agree with you. There are, regrettably and tragically, times when war--and very occasionally other forms of violence--is the "best" of a bad slew of choices, the one most likely to protect human life and dignity in the long run. But, like you, I am not comfortable using the word "justified" to describe these awful occasions. "Justified" suggests that the moral necessity of doing the wrong thing (in the short term) somehow magically obliviates the wrongness done. It does not.

Above and beyond that, there is also the fact that most wars include acts by both sides whose moral necessity (even in the longterm view) is highly debatable. The Allied bombing of Dresden, for instance.
__________________

__________________
yolland is offline  
Old 10-27-2005, 03:32 PM   #33
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,271
Local Time: 04:40 AM
Re: what the Hebrew texts say...as Christians, are we obligated to follow Mosaic Law to the letter or do we take the teachings of Jesus to supersede it? I heard an interesting lecture about this very issue years ago.
__________________
anitram is offline  
Old 10-27-2005, 03:43 PM   #34
Forum Moderator
 
yolland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 7,471
Local Time: 10:40 AM
Not that I'm qualified to answer ...but it's a foregone conclusion, isn't it, that Christians don't follow Mosaic Law? I guess I have heard of some sects that argue St. Paul was wrong about that, or that the "Thus he declared all foods clean" passage misconstrues Jesus' intention etc. etc., but I thought these were pretty fringe arguments.

Or did you just mean the Ten Commandments?
__________________
yolland is offline  
Old 10-27-2005, 05:58 PM   #35
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 01:40 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by yolland

Of course you can--and should--take the 6th commandment to mean whatever you believe God intended, as informed by your own beliefs and your own relationship with God.

BUT, just as an FYI, the Hebrew text here--lo tirtzakh--actually means "You shall not murder" (or, more literally, "Murder not!") The Hebrew for "You shall not kill" would be lo taharoq, which is not what the text says.

There were some pacifist Jewish sects during the Roman era who maintained that lo taharoq was in fact the ultimate intended meaning of this commandment, and I *think* it was from their texts that Christian tradition took its traditional "Thou shalt not kill" translation. However, today there are several Christian translations that do defer to the original, lo tirtzakh. Couldn't tell you which ones they are, though.
For Christians, Jesus extended the "You shall not murder" to matters of the heart.

"But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment." Matthew 5:22



So, before questioning if someone believes in the 10 Commandments, they should consider the broader application for Christians.
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 10-27-2005, 06:39 PM   #36
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: London/Sydney
Posts: 6,608
Local Time: 10:40 AM
Well, if war can be justified, what justifications are there for war? Someone answer me that, because I can't think of any.
__________________
Earnie Shavers is offline  
Old 10-27-2005, 06:41 PM   #37
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 01:40 AM
And again, justify it to whom? Who are we answering to in this question?
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 10-27-2005, 06:43 PM   #38
Forum Moderator
 
yolland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 7,471
Local Time: 10:40 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader
For Christians, Jesus extended the "You shall not murder" to matters of the heart.

"But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment." Matthew 5:22



So, before questioning if someone believes in the 10 Commandments, they should consider the broader application for Christians.
Well, the Torah does say not to hold grudges or be vengeful towards your brethren, and to love your neighbor as yourself. And the school of Hillel, probably the most influential first century BC rabbi (he died probably c.20 BC, but possibly later) taught that this was the most important command in the entire Torah. But after Hillel died, the Sanhedrin was monopolized by the school of Shammai, who was definitely a crusty letter-of-the law type. As far as I know though, Jesus never directly referred to either of them.

Not sure what you're getting at with the last sentence.
__________________
yolland is offline  
Old 10-27-2005, 07:09 PM   #39
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Washington State
Posts: 3,861
Local Time: 09:40 AM
If no one fought for themselves or for the oppressed this world would be Hell.

And when God says "Thou shalt not kill" it's not as simple as that. If it was He wouldn't aid certain people in war in the Old Testemant.

Romans 13:1-7:
1 Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.
2 Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.
3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:
4 For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.
5 Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake.
__________________
shart1780 is offline  
Old 10-27-2005, 07:31 PM   #40
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: London/Sydney
Posts: 6,608
Local Time: 10:40 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader
And again, justify it to whom? Who are we answering to in this question?
To anyone and everyone. To yourself. To your God. To the families of people who get killed. To the electorate perhaps. Straying this into a Christian debate about the interpretation of lines of scripture doesn't interest me, in that regard I'm happy with 'based on what you believe', but also in more earthly ways, I mean, at what point is it justifiable to send a nation to war - with all that involves, and ALL you have to answer to in regards to that. Anytime you are essentially ordering death, you are answering to, well, everything, and you'd better have a fucking good reason.
__________________
Earnie Shavers is offline  
Old 10-27-2005, 10:11 PM   #41
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 07:40 PM
Quote:
Is violence ever justifiable? I guess most, if not all of us here on Interference think that physical violence in private households, which is mainly against women, is not justified. I go as far as saying it is never justified.
If a burgalar broke into my home I would be justified in using reasonable force against them.

If a man was beating a woman to death on the street I think that it would be right to intervene with physical violence.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 10-27-2005, 10:22 PM   #42
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: London/Sydney
Posts: 6,608
Local Time: 10:40 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by A_Wanderer
If a burgalar broke into my home I would be justified in using reasonable force against them.

If a man was beating a woman to death on the street I think that it would be right to intervene with physical violence.
Of course, but the robber busting into your home has no justification and the guy beating the woman doesn't either. This is MY point. War is NEVER justified, defence IS.
__________________
Earnie Shavers is offline  
Old 10-27-2005, 10:24 PM   #43
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 07:40 PM
I am defending on behalf of a presumably innocent party in the second case, my own person is not at risk.

Analogous to a humanitarian intervention against a group who is inflicting damage upon a good number of innocent people; e.g. Somalia or Iraq.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 10-27-2005, 11:40 PM   #44
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,271
Local Time: 04:40 AM
I think the point being made is more along the lines of - if the party inflicting the violence did not participate in it (because it is not justified), then there would be no reason for you to retaliate either.

That way, you can say, all war is wrong. Because if Hitler did not go to war, neither would the allies have gone to war subsequently. The notion of war being unjustifiable applies to all parties, and if you remove the originator of violence, you also remove everybody downstream.

Without an offense, there would be no need for a defense, I guess.

Just wanted to add that it's not necessarily what I believe, because I allow for huge errancy in the human psyche which probably makes 'no war' an impossibility. I do feel a great deal of empathy with women and children and anybody else who has no say, because it's always those people paying the biggest price for somebody else's ambitions. And they never have a choice, and on top of that, they are slandered by being equated to no more than collateral damage as the final insult.
__________________
anitram is offline  
Old 10-27-2005, 11:45 PM   #45
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 04:40 AM
My "favorite" heretic, St. Augustine of Hippo, had a formal opinion on this subject, and St. Thomas ("I became a saint only because I wrote a book and claimed I never had a sexual thought in my entire lifetime") Aquinas expounded on the subject.

http://www.monksofadoration.org/justwar.html

I'd be interested if you all think such medieval theology has any points worth noting today. Needless to say, a lot of conservative churches tend to (subconciously) echo their reasoning.

Still, I find this part very interesting for different reasons:

Quote:
Regarding Christian military service "before the year 172 there was none. . .Evidence of Christians serving in the Roman army before the third century is suspect. . . A study of tombstone inscriptions reveals that only 7 Christians out of 4,700 extant inscriptions were members of the military."(27) This evidence shows few served in the military. Of the 7 military tombstone inscriptions it is not clear whether these people converted in the service or entered already converted. In 298 Marcellus, a centurion, refused to continue military service. In front of the Emperor he claimed he would only serve Jesus Christ. Brought to trial Marcellus argued that "he could not inflict wounds."(28) He was executed for defying the Emperor. In the third century "Christians certainly served in the army; but their numbers were small, their service peaceful, and their testimony one of peace and not of violence."(29)

When we arrive at St. Augustine his justifications for war "are based on Cicero and other Roman thinkers. . . (with) Manichaean and Neoplatonic influences."(30) There is a dualism in his writings over the possibility "to love an enemy internally and still to kill him."(31) St. Augustine "seems never to have satisfied himself as to how it (war) is fully compatible with Christian charity."(32)
Interfice errorem, diligere errantem. That is, "kill the sin, love the sinner"--a quote attributed to St. Augustine. And then here we have the other end of his logic: the ability to kill a man and still love him, perhaps to reconcile Jesus' commandment to "love your enemies" along with your neighbors, with his macho bloodlust. And perhaps we can see why modern Christianity is nothing but "macho bloodlust."

Melon
__________________

__________________
melon is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:40 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com