augustine17
augustine17
augustine17
killing under conditions in general can be justified, as long as it is not in the name of the killing...
my opinion is fighting and killing can be justified further than just protection of physical but can be carried over to idealistic protection (such as morality, or other Christian priorities) thus fighting can be brought about in enemy territory, as an attack in regards to defending an ideal... the way i see it:
you must be in mindset of readiness to die rather than kill- i also believe that both sides can be in the right.
also all Christian sects are derived from roman catholics which was the early church mended with Greco-Roman idealism and philosophy... the romans held honor and duty in very high regards, thus it is that fighting was quickly moralized in a community in which it was completely necessary.
also fighting ( i talk of war very generally as to push my ideal of acceptance of combat in all areas) is inevitable if you want world morality rather than world piece.
BUT as a Christian you must always hold war ethics and honor very strongly, and choose your battles very carefully, you must always remember (as Saint Peter forgot) that the message and significance to the cause is more important than the general defense of thing, by this i mean if you are to be a marauder have it have some message rather than to die in vain
anyone bother reading this?
I'm pretty sure this is trolling, but i want a good argument against this.
Fine:
augustine17
killing under conditions in general can be justified, as long as it is not in the name of the killing...
my opinion is fighting and killing can be justified further than just protection of physical but can be carried over to idealistic protection (such as morality, or other Christian priorities) thus fighting can be brought about in enemy territory, as an attack in regards to defending an ideal... the way i see it:
you must be in mindset of readiness to die rather than kill- i also believe that both sides can be in the right.
also all Christian sects are derived from roman catholics which was the early church mended with Greco-Roman idealism and philosophy... the romans held honor and duty in very high regards, thus it is that fighting was quickly moralized in a community in which it was completely necessary.
also fighting ( i talk of war very generally as to push my ideal of acceptance of combat in all areas) is inevitable if you want world morality rather than world piece.
BUT as a Christian you must always hold war ethics and honor very strongly, and choose your battles very carefully, you must always remember (as Saint Peter forgot) that the message and significance to the cause is more important than the general defense of thing, by this i mean if you are to be a marauder have it have some message rather than to die in vain
1
my opinion is fighting and killing can be justified further than just protection of physical but can be carried over to idealistic protection (such as morality, or other Christian priorities) thus fighting can be brought about in enemy territory, as an attack in regards to defending an ideal... the way i see it:
you must be in mindset of readiness to die rather than kill- i also believe that both sides can be in the right.
War can be justified, but generally moral or religious justification does not fall under Just Cause, namely because there's no particular reason to go on the offensive for your own beliefs on the grounds that you think you're right. To understand this further let's take it down a notch, to personal levels:
You think Jesus exists and is the Light and the Truth. Bobby doesn't think this. Does it make sense for you to attack him in order to "protect" the concept that you are right and he is wrong? Has this ever passed as legitimate in any legal situation that wasn't skewed by social dissonance? No. It's an unreasonable position.
2
also all Christian sects are derived from roman catholics which was the early church mended with Greco-Roman idealism and philosophy... the romans held honor and duty in very high regards, thus it is that fighting was quickly moralized in a community in which it was completely necessary.
Morals are not ethics. The fact that something is moral in a specific culture does not make the act ethical. The reason Just Cause theory exists in ethics is because of the bad moral grounds that you're talking about. The fact that everyone was pumped and ready to go doesn't mean they were ready to fight for the right reasons.
3
also fighting ( i talk of war very generally as to push my ideal of acceptance of combat in all areas) is inevitable if you want world morality rather than world piece.
Inevitability is a bad argument, or "Eventuality", because again the common refutation is as follows:
Everyone dies, therefore it is alright that I kill you, as you would die eventually anyway.
Translated into your view it's basically "war happens therefore who better to start a war than us?", horrible reasoning.
Quote:
BUT as a Christian you must always hold war ethics and honor very strongly, and choose your battles very carefully, you must always remember (as Saint Peter forgot) that the message and significance to the cause is more important than the general defense of thing, by this i mean if you are to be a marauder have it have some message rather than to die in vain.
Which is backwards in many ways and contradictory. In regards to ethics from a Christian viewpoint ( Divine Command ) war has different grounds than an actual Just Cause. If God told the Christians to slaughter all pufferfish for heaven's sake and the Christian's did just that there's no particular practical reasoning and that's Diving Command, but you can't die with a good cause and do silly things. Those who die in the pufferfish war will like idiots, end of story.
