Just war theory

[Jacob]

Right. It just says 'the Church' when Scripture speaks of the Catholic Church today. The 'Catholic' Church was invented by someone very close to the Apostolic era, if not during the Apostolic era, because by AD 107, the phrase was already being used to talk about the whole entire Church, comprising all of the churches, all around the world at that time. As a synonym for the Body of Christ.

Even if that is true, which is after the Bible and the early church that I know, it is not the Catholic Church known today, which is why I reject your assertion. You have not made an error in exposition about the church in the Bible, you have added your own words and from history, to what is found in the Bible.

 

[Idolater]

Even if that is true, which is after the Bible and the early church that I know, it is not the Catholic Church known today, which is why I reject your assertion. You have not made an error in exposition about the church in the Bible, you have added your own words and from history, to what is found in the Bible.

History happened. We can see in history the Apostolic era, and the times immediately following that era, and what happened. Largely, what happened, was that the Gospel spread, and Christians were killed, a lot of them were bishops, along with the Apostles.

(And James the Just, the 'Brother of the Lord,' the first bishop of the church in Jerusalem, which disappeared from history when Rome forced all the Jews out of Jerusalem. Up to that point, the church in Jerusalem was administered by Jewish bishops, beginning with James, whose appointment to the office of the bishop of Jerusalem was authorized by Peter, John, and his brother James; the Apostles.)

Of course all the churches were united together. That remained, until the 'Orthodox' churches in the 'East' schismed with the 'West.' So the one Body of Christ split into two. Then, in the 'West,' the Church's temporal power was targeted in the 'Reformation,' which created 'denominations.'

If you compare 'denominations' according to adherents, there are ten times more Catholics than the next closest church, which is either the Greek or Russian Orthodox church, idk which, and then after these, is either another Orthodox church, or the Lutheran church, or perhaps the 'Church of England,' I really am not sure, but the Catholics outnumber the next nearest by at least five, or ten. It could be more than 10.

Where are the bishops? 1st Timothy 3:1 KJV. There are Catholic bishops, and there are Orthodox bishops, and both those churches are ancient. There are Anglican bishops, but the Anglican church was invented by King Henry the VII in the 1500s, so they can't descend from the unbroken chain of the imposition of hands used to consecrate all bishops, starting with the Apostles creating the first generation of Church bishops themselves, through the laying on of their own hands, like do the Catholic and Orthodox bishops.

So the bishops are Catholic and Orthodox. That's where 'the Church' from the Bible is today; wherever the bishops are. 'The Church' from the Bible was administrated by bishops, the Apostles consecrated bishops all over the world when they spread the Gospel, obeying the Lord's command to them in Matthew 28:19-20 KJV, and there are bishops today.

 

[Jacob]

History happened. We can see in history the Apostolic era, and the times immediately following that era, and what happened. Largely, what happened, was that the Gospel spread, and Christians were killed, a lot of them were bishops, along with the Apostles.

(And James the Just, the 'Brother of the Lord,' the first bishop of the church in Jerusalem, which disappeared from history when Rome forced all the Jews out of Jerusalem. Up to that point, the church in Jerusalem was administered by Jewish bishops, beginning with James, whose appointment to the office of the bishop of Jerusalem was authorized by Peter, John, and his brother James; the Apostles.)

Of course all the churches were united together. That remained, until the 'Orthodox' churches in the 'East' schismed with the 'West.' So the one Body of Christ split into two. Then, in the 'West,' the Church's temporal power was targeted in the 'Reformation,' which created 'denominations.'

If you compare 'denominations' according to adherents, there are ten times more Catholics than the next closest church, which is either the Greek or Russian Orthodox church, idk which, and then after these, is either another Orthodox church, or the Lutheran church, or perhaps the 'Church of England,' I really am not sure, but the Catholics outnumber the next nearest by at least five, or ten. It could be more than 10.

Where are the bishops? 1st Timothy 3:1 KJV. There are Catholic bishops, and there are Orthodox bishops, and both those churches are ancient. There are Anglican bishops, but the Anglican church was invented by King Henry the VII in the 1500s, so they can't descend from the unbroken chain of the imposition of hands used to consecrate all bishops, starting with the Apostles creating the first generation of Church bishops themselves, through the laying on of their own hands, like do the Catholic and Orthodox bishops.

So the bishops are Catholic and Orthodox. That's where 'the Church' from the Bible is today; wherever the bishops are. 'The Church' from the Bible was administrated by bishops, the Apostles consecrated bishops all over the world when they spread the Gospel, obeying the Lord's command to them in Matthew 28:19-20 KJV, and there are bishops today.

Interesting approach. I usually say that the early church was entirely Jewish. I do not recognize Catholic or Protestant.

 

[Idolater]

Interesting approach. I usually say that the early church was entirely Jewish. I do not recognize Catholic or Protestant.

The early church in Jerusalem Was entirely Jewish, ruled by entirely Jewish bishops, and when the Romans kicked out every Jew from Jerusalem, the church in Jerusalem was lost to history.

There are according to Wikipedia 'Hebrew Catholics,' fwiw, if anything.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hebrew_Catholics

 

[Jacob]

The early church in Jerusalem Was entirely Jewish, ruled by entirely Jewish bishops, and when the Romans kicked out every Jew from Jerusalem, the church in Jerusalem was lost to history.

There are according to Wikipedia 'Hebrew Catholics,' fwiw, if anything.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hebrew_Catholics

I am thinking of before this even. Before there were Gentile believers.

 

[Idolater]

I am thinking of before this even. Before there were Gentile believers.

No such time. There were 'strangers of Rome, Jews and proselytes,' on Day One. Acts 2:10 KJV

 

[Jacob]

No such time. There were 'strangers of Rome, Jews and proselytes,' on Day One. Acts 2:10 KJV

Do you remember when the Spirit was poured out on Gentiles as well?

 

[Idolater]

Do you remember when the Spirit was poured out on Gentiles as well?

Right there in Acts 2:10 KJV, "strangers of Rome, Jews and proselytes." 'Proselytes' were Gentiles. That's what the Bible calls, what we would call today, Pagans. Do a lot of pagans live around you? Ancient Jerusalem was Jewish, writ large, the city of Jews. Pagans were rare there, but some pagans did convert to Levitical Judaism, these were the first converts to the Christian Gospel, Acts 2:10 KJV was on Pentecost, ten days after the Lord ascended to where He is now seated at the right hand of the Father, and 50 days (Pente-) from His Resurrection, from a tomb that still stands, in Jerusalem today, inside the Church of the Holy Sepulcher. It was carved out of bedrock, which was exposed (no soil covering the bedrock) in that area. Then on Easter morning He was raised from the dead, He got up, had the stone moved, and left the tomb. Tombs are made for people to go into and not to come out of, really.

 

[Jacob]

Right there in Acts 2:10 KJV, "strangers of Rome, Jews and proselytes." 'Proselytes' were Gentiles. That's what the Bible calls, what we would call today, Pagans. Do a lot of pagans live around you? Ancient Jerusalem was Jewish, writ large, the city of Jews. Pagans were rare there, but some pagans did convert to Levitical Judaism, these were the first converts to the Christian Gospel, Acts 2:10 KJV was on Pentecost, ten days after the Lord ascended to where He is now seated at the right hand of the Father, and 50 days (Pente-) from His Resurrection, from a tomb that still stands, in Jerusalem today, inside the Church of the Holy Sepulcher. It was carved out of bedrock, which was exposed (no soil covering the bedrock) in that area. Then on Easter morning He was raised from the dead, He got up, had the stone moved, and left the tomb. Tombs are made for people to go into and not to come out of, really.

I believe in the resurrection, but not in Easter which is pagan. A proselyte has equal standing if you read the Torah. He was not born a Jew but has become a Jew, like me.

 

[Jacob]

OK - ISIS : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_State_of_Iraq_and_the_Levant

they are a terrorist organization that deliberately targets innocents, civilians, aid workers, etc and brutally kills them

they kidnap and enslave young women, subjecting them to continual rape


my argument would be that it is just to war against ISIS because they are an evil organization, dedicated to spreading evil

I have read or perused or scanned the contents of your link.

How do you think about reaching people with the gospel?

Also, I have read the Quran though I do not remember it. Is your link intended to be about Muslims or terrorists or something else?

 

[ok doser]

I have read or perused or scanned the contents of your link.

How do you think about reaching people with the gospel?

Also, I have read the Quran though I do not remember it. Is your link intended to be about Muslims or terrorists or something else?

i too read the koran several years ago, probably around 2002

much like the book of mormon, none of it stuck :chuckle:

in terms of the hardcore islamic militants who drive isis and commit the atrocities, i'm inclined to think that they are unreachable wrt the gospel message

i only mentioned them as an obvious example of evil that is justifiably opposed with military might - for example, war


and i appreciate the inclusion of augustine's thoughts in the conversation:

'Just War' is a doctrine that was first introduced loosely by St. Augustine. It's first mentioned in the City of God- his largest collection of works that even today is still a cornerstone to many universal doctrines.

It's well worth looking into, though it's a complex and sometimes harsh read depending on certain moral notions you might have. The Catholic Church in particular still maintains a firm stance on the matter, as it's something they expound on and have expressed in their catechism.
Among other things, this a bit of what is stated:

As with all moral acts the use of force to obtain justice must comply with three conditions to be morally good. First, the act must be good in itself. The use of force to obtain justice is morally licit in itself. Second, it must be done with a good intention, which as noted earlier must be to correct vice, to restore justice or to restrain evil, and not to inflict evil for its own sake. Thirdly, it must be appropriate in the circumstances. An act which may otherwise be good and well motivated can be sinful by reason of imprudent judgment and execution.

>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

the war against isis meets the first two criteria - the third criteria recognizes that the devil is in the details

certainly, smash isis, destroy their leadership, kill on the battlefield all those who support the ideology

but how do you war against isis (or hamas, for that matter) when they hide like cowards behind women and children?

how do the israelis oppose the terrorists in hamas when hamas fires rockets into Israeli civilian populations from Gaza elementary schools?

 

[Jacob]

i too read the koran several years ago, probably around 2002

much like the book of mormon, none of it stuck :chuckle:

in terms of the hardcore islamic militants who drive isis and commit the atrocities, i'm inclined to think that they are unreachable wrt the gospel message

i only mentioned them as an obvious example of evil that is justifiably opposed with military might - for example, war


and i appreciate the inclusion of augustine's thoughts in the conversation:



the war against isis meets the first two criteria - the third criteria recognizes that the devil is in the details

certainly, smash isis, destroy their leadership, kill on the battlefield all those who support the ideology

but how do you war against isis (or hamas, for that matter) when they hide like cowards behind women and children?

how do the israelis oppose the terrorists in hamas when hamas fires rockets into Israeli civilian populations from Gaza elementary schools?

Would doing nothing show the power of God? I am not encouraging you to do anything. But they need to know the gospel. Then a bigger question than attacking is what is just in each and every situation. How do you approach this subject?

 

[Jacob]

Is it ever right or okay to go to war? Are we the ones who effect change such that there is no more war?

 

[JudgeRightly]

Is it ever right or okay to go to war?

Yes.

Are we the ones who effect change such that there is no more war?

Trying to get to "no more war" is futile.

We, as a nation, should live under the good neighbor policy.

 

[Jacob]

Yes.



Trying to get to "no more war" is futile.

We, as a nation, should live under the good neighbor policy.

What if there should not be war any longer? One day there will be no more war.

What is the good neighbor policy?

 

[Idolater]

Trying to get to "no more war" is futile.

We, as a nation, should live under the good neighbor policy.

I think that 'no more war' is possible and even expected, when everybody is well armed and well trained in the use of those arms. Peace through strength, and 'si vis pacem, para bellum.'

If you want peace, prepare for war. If we prepare for war, we Will have peace.

But we can't do that if as individuals we infringe our individual right to keep and bear all instruments constituting bearable arms, which is what every 'gun control' law does.

So, I disagree with you! It is Not futile to try to get to no more war, but we must do it through being well regulated, which requires that the government stop meddling in the gun/weapons market.

 

[drbrumley]

Trying to get to "no more war" is futile.

Such the optimist.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Such the optimist.

I'm not saying that we can't achieve peace.

I'm saying that eliminating war completely is impossible, and will not happen until Christ returns.

 

[drbrumley]

Please explain.

Are you speaking of something that you find in Revelation, the last book of the Bible?

What I mean is there is a reason for "war." That reason is "sin." Man is in a fallen condition. After Jesus returns, the books opened and everyone ever born finds where they are staying for eternity, then there will be no more "war."

 

[drbrumley]

What I mean is there is a reason for "war." That reason is "sin." Man is in a fallen condition. After Jesus returns, the books opened and everyone ever born finds where they are staying for eternity, then there will be no more "war."

And BTW, christians will stand before God and give account for the needless bloodshed they have started in the name of Christ.