DjCiD Posted March 12, 2003 Share Posted March 12, 2003 Zamboe correct me if I'm worng but you are catholic right? You said the Pope is against war. Just wanted to share some things with you I have found.4th century, St. Augustine argued as police can use violence to protect citizens from criminals, the state can make war against an unjust aggressor. Indeed, love of neighbor might require war. Church leaders used just war theory to initiate “holy wars.” The end of the 11th century Pope Urban II proclaimed a crusade against Islam to recapture the Holy LandSt. Thomas Aquinas specified three conditions for a just war. First, the cause must be just. Second, war can only be conducted by legitimate authority. Finally, there must be right intention (i.e., to resist aggression or restore what had been unjustly seized). Following Augustine, St. Thomas held that charity might require war to protect the innocent or assure the common good. Catholic moral theology and Church teaching have, for the most part, adopted this approach. Pius XII (1939-1958)taught that Catholics could not in good conscience refuse to participate in a war of national self-defense declared by legitimate authority (Christmas Message 1956). Pope John Paul II has restated the just war theory and seems to hold that the use of nuclear weapons never meets the test of proportionality. That is, nuclear destruction is so terrible that no situation can justify it. (World Day of Peace Message, 1982). Isn't this is the same Pope your saying is aginst war? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zamboe Posted March 12, 2003 Author Share Posted March 12, 2003 no, Christianity is your crutch for the anti-american sentiment. If it is unchristian to fight for the helpless Iraqi's, then it is unchristian to fight against the FARC.you consider yourself Christian and at the same time pursue and look for an immediate destruction and killing of FARC (knowing that any war against the FARC will result in killing on both sides- including FARC stepping up more civillian attacks).Anti-american sentiment ? LMAO. it would be more accurate anti-emprworm sentiment. LOL. FYI, millions of US citizens, agree with me about : NO WAR ON IRAQ. Do I smell some arrogance here ?, I don't agree with you in almost any possible political thread, and just for that you say I am anti-american. LOL ! Get this straight : You do not represent the US opinion, therefore you are wrong, I wish you could listen some friend that I have that is currently in exchange here for a few months, he is from the US, he agrees with me about Iraq. When you say anti-american is just a proof that you have run out of reason and start taking it personal.FARC vs Iraq : LOL, your twisted comment fall very easy.In Colombia the war is currently in progress, it started more than 5 years ago !. Got the difference now ?, I am always hopping for a new break in that war, given that the last break only lasted a few months, after that the war between FARC and AUC and so resumed again. So if the war is currently in progress I want it to finish asap, the only possible way to do it is for the smallest violent group to be defeated, when the war is in progress = THERE IS NO CHOICE. When it comes to Iraq, the war didn't started yet, so I am against it, I want it never happen. Got it ? or should I make a draw for you ?.There is no contradiction in my position, those two events are completly different.You have a "Christian" problem with helping 23 million people to end their suffering under dictatorial barbarism, but have no "Christian" problem helping the Columbians end their suffering under FARC barbarism.War in Colombia is in progress.War in Iraq has not started yet.I want the war in Colombia to finish asap.I want no war in Iraq.There is no contradiction.I have a problem with some elected US president that uses the possible suffer of some Iraqis as a mask to cover it's real economic intentions, oil hungry and war mongering. Do you have a problem with peace ?Is Christianity against peace for you?What congregation or Christian church you believe in ?Are you Christian ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caid Ivik Posted March 12, 2003 Share Posted March 12, 2003 If USA won't start the war, Kurdis will do so. And they won't aim just on military systems... It's moral cause to prevent a slaugthery. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
emprworm Posted March 12, 2003 Share Posted March 12, 2003 And here is where you fall apart Zamboe, like shattered glass."FARC vs Iraq : LOL, your twisted comment fall very easy."Yes, you are right. Comparing FARC to Hussein was actually making FARC look like altar boyz. I was being good to them by doing that. Hussein has killed far more people than FARC. More than 150,000 deaths directly attributed to him. FARC looks like upstanding moral citizens compared to Hussein."In Colombia the war is currently in progress, it started more than 5 years ago !."The war in Iraq started 30 years ago. Yes, you are right, my comparison with FARC was a bad one, since FARC is beginning to look good now that I'm comparing it to the Iraqi regime."Got the difference now ?"Yes, I do. I made FARC look good by putting them in the same sentence as Hussein, for that I apologize.<snip stuff about a war in progress>|FARC Hussein| is attacking |Colombians Iraqis| IF the US intervenes to help the |Colombians Iraqis| , it is doing a good thing. Even though |FARC Hussein| is not engaged in a battle with the United States. Yet many innocent people are dying, and international laws and/or UN resolutions are being broken.It is not against Christianity for the US to engage |FARC Hussein| to help innocent |Colombians Iraqis| . Do you agree? |FARC Hussein| is attacking |Colombians Iraqis| IF the US intervenes to help the |Colombians Iraqis| , it is doing a good thing. Even though |FARC Hussein| is not engaged in a battle with the United States. Yet many innocent people are dying, and international laws and/or UN resolutions are being broken.It is not against Christianity for the US to engage |FARC Hussein| to help innocent |Colombians Iraqis| . Do you agree? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nemafakei Posted March 12, 2003 Share Posted March 12, 2003 Now read it again, and correct where you've twisted his words to suit your ends, having read what he has been saying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
emprworm Posted March 12, 2003 Share Posted March 12, 2003 Posted by: Nema Fakei Now read it again, and correct where you've twisted his words to suit your ends, having read what he has been saying. No. My words will stand. I read what he said. he says Iraqi Dictatorial bloodshed is morally different than FARC bloodshed. And he is wrong. Not only am I standing by my words without changing them, I am doing so emphatically! Now, read what I said again, and this time actually read what I have been saying.|FARC Hussein| is attacking |Colombians Iraqis| IF the US intervenes to help the |Colombians Iraqis| , it is doing a good thing. Even though |FARC Hussein| is not engaged in a battle with the United States. Yet many innocent people are dying, and international laws and/or UN resolutions are being broken.It is not against Christianity for the US to engage |FARC Hussein| to help innocent |Colombians Iraqis| . Do you agree? |FARC Hussein| is attacking |Colombians Iraqis| IF the US intervenes to help the |Colombians Iraqis| , it is doing a good thing. Even though |FARC Hussein| is not engaged in a battle with the United States. Yet many innocent people are dying, and international laws and/or UN resolutions are being broken.It is not against Christianity for the US to engage |FARC Hussein| to help innocent |Colombians Iraqis| . Do you agree? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SurlyPIG Posted March 13, 2003 Share Posted March 13, 2003 Shattered like a poorly-constructed glass statue.Excellent comparison between the FARC and Hussein. Sometimes all that is needed to expose someone's hypocrisy is a metaphor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zamboe Posted March 13, 2003 Author Share Posted March 13, 2003 Now read it again, and correct where you've twisted his words to suit your ends, having read what he has been saying.Nema you actually did understand what I wrote and mean, on the contrary of emprworm he as usuall twists the words and meaning. It's not even worth to comment that colorfull but meaningless last post of him.I am sure that he also don't know that the Iraqi, wheater he likes it or not, is a legal government with worldwide recognition (that's why belongs to the UN) but the FARC is an irregular army that is not under the law. That's why those two are not possible to compare. Obviously he's trying to diver the topic by bringing the discussion into an off topic subject.In my opinion, since emprworm has dodged my last Q's , that would only mean that in his priorities Christianity is not the top one, but some other person. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
emprworm Posted March 13, 2003 Share Posted March 13, 2003 wheater he likes it or not, is a legal government with worldwide recognition (that's why belongs to the UN) but the FARC is an irregular army that is not under the law. That's why those two are not possible to compare. Obviously he's trying to diver the topic by bringing the discussion into an off topic subject.rofl! A government that is "legal in the eyes of men" suddenly thereby means "legal under God". Sorry Zamboe, but this topic is about Christianity. You are making an argument that morally it is permissible in Christianity for the US to attack FARC, but not Hussein. And what is your justification for this? "is a legal government with worldwide recognition ". LOL! Read your Bible dude. legal under God's eyes has nothing to do with "worldwide recognition" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gobalopper Posted March 13, 2003 Share Posted March 13, 2003 Here is an article on the subject:The Vatican's views on war are welcome, agree or notI notice that he mentions that the Vatican has not declared the war immoral, instead they are just arguing that point, and have asked Bush to spend more time in the UN. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zamboe Posted March 13, 2003 Author Share Posted March 13, 2003 rofl! A government that is "legal in the eyes of men" suddenly thereby means "legal under God". Sorry Zamboe, but this topic is about Christianity. You are making an argument that morally it is permissible in Christianity for the US to attack FARC, but not Hussein. And what is your justification for this? "is a legal government with worldwide recognition ". LOL! Read your Bible dude. legal under God's eyes has nothing to do with "worldwide recognition"I want you to post inmediately where did I say or imply that "legal under God", I've never even thought about God's law. You are still trying to divert. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zamboe Posted March 13, 2003 Author Share Posted March 13, 2003 Here is an article on the subject:The Vatican's views on war are welcome, agree or notI notice that he mentions that the Vatican has not declared the war immoral, instead they are just arguing that point, and have asked Bush to spend more time in the UN.that's just a newspaper, you cannot find such a thing in the official Vatican site. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gobalopper Posted March 13, 2003 Share Posted March 13, 2003 I'm not sure what you are saying? He is wrong then that the Vatican hasn't declared the war immoral? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
emprworm Posted March 13, 2003 Share Posted March 13, 2003 rofl! A government that is "legal in the eyes of men" suddenly thereby means "legal under God". Sorry Zamboe, but this topic is about Christianity. You are making an argument that morally it is permissible in Christianity for the US to attack FARC, but not Hussein. And what is your justification for this? "is a legal government with worldwide recognition ". LOL! Read your Bible dude. legal under God's eyes has nothing to do with "worldwide recognition"I want you to post inmediately where did I say or imply that "legal under God", I've never even thought about God's law. You are still trying to divert.is it or is it not a voilation of Christianity for the United States to assist Colombia in fighting the FARC, with violence if necessary? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zamboe Posted March 13, 2003 Author Share Posted March 13, 2003 You didn't answer my question that I spefically ask, where did I say "law of God", else you are making this up.Now that I remember, with all this HR Bush mask, not even Amnesty International is supporting that war. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
emprworm Posted March 13, 2003 Share Posted March 13, 2003 you didn't say "law of God"there, I answered your question. now answer mine:is it or is it not a voilation of Christianity for the United States to assist Colombia in fighting the FARC, with violence if necessary? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nemafakei Posted March 13, 2003 Share Posted March 13, 2003 Answer his question, Zamboe. It's a crucial one..."In my opinion, since emprworm has dodged my last Q's , that would only mean that in his priorities Christianity is not the top one, but some other person."It is unwise to make such inferences."A government that is "legal in the eyes of men" suddenly thereby means "legal under God"."You know full well he never said that, Empr. Stop twisting his words. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
emprworm Posted March 13, 2003 Share Posted March 13, 2003 Nema, in case you missed my above post, i admitted to that. Zamboe never said those words. THey were my own words. Now that I admit that, I await Zamboe to answer my question about the FARC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nemafakei Posted March 13, 2003 Share Posted March 13, 2003 I saw your post, and your curt admission that he did not say that suggests it would be necessary to remind you not to twist words as you did above, and that it is clear to those who might read the thread that the quotation from you is a misinterpretation of Zamboe's argument. There are other people on this forum, whom I also attempt to help, here, by clarifying Zamboe's argument, so the misinterpretation is not repeated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
emprworm Posted March 13, 2003 Share Posted March 13, 2003 I saw your post, and your curt admission that he did not say that suggests it would be necessary to remind you not to twist words as you did above, and that it is clear to those who might read the thread that the quotation from you is a misinterpretation of Zamboe's argument. There are other people on this forum, whom I also attempt to help, here, by clarifying Zamboe's argument, so the misinterpretation is not repeated.and i was being nice, Nema, by taking back my words. but you know what? Now I am not taking them back anymore since you are so intent on rubbing this in for 3 consecutive posts even after I took them back. Because of your uncomely persistence, I will now re-instate my words in full effect.I morally equated the US helping the Iraqi's with the US helping the Colombians. I am not SITUATIONALLY equating them, I am morally equating them.Zamboe said in reply (quote)"I am sure that he also don't know that the Iraqi, wheater he likes it or not, is a legal government with worldwide recognition (that's why belongs to the UN) but the FARC is an irregular army that is not under the law. That's why those two are not possible to compare. Obviously he's trying to diver the topic by bringing the discussion into an off topic subject."Zamboe cites a difference between the two governments as one being "recognized" by men and the other is not.BUT THE TOPIC OF THIS THREAD IS "Christianity is against WAR"!!!Therefore I am led to naturally conclude that when Zamboe says a difference between Iraq and Colombia is that one is a human recognized government, he is making that claim in support of of the premise that fighting the FARC is NOT against CHristianity. IN otherwords, becuase Iraq is a "legal government with worldwide recognition" somethow that means that it IS against Christianity to fight them, and fighting the FARC is not against Christianity because it is not a "legal government with worldwide recognition". This is equivalent to my response when I said "so a government that is "legal in the eyes of men" suddenly thereby means "legal under God"?" I do not take back those words now. I re-instate them, in full force. The TOPIC OF THIS THREAD IS "Christianity is against WAR" THEREFORE I WILL ASSUME ANY ARGUMENT ZAMBOE MAKES TO DISTINGUISH COLOMBIA FROM IRAQ WILL BE WITHIN THIS PRETEXT UNLESS STATED OTHERWISESo when Zamboe says "is a legal government with worldwide recognition (that's why belongs to the UN) but the FARC is an irregular army that is not under the law." I will assume that he is using this argument to justify a war with the FARC as permisssible under CHRISTIANITY (as the topic of this thread demands). So unless Zamboe answers my question directly, I will continue to assume that he is making an argument that"Christianity is ok with war against the FARC" yet "Christianity is not ok with war against Hussein"I take back my retraction, and I now restate my original statement fully. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts