Christianity has for 2000 years debated the morality of war and the ways in which actions in war can be moral or immoral.
Now, we can discuss whether a particular action in a particular war meets those criteria or not. I would enjoy such a discussion about Hiroshima, as I have heard very good opinions either way and categorically don’t know whether it was moral or not. Some of the more intelligent posters on this thread are indeed having that discussion.
But to sit here and be told essentially that Christian morals don’t matter because we are in a brutal war and...hey...we just need to end it quick?
Are you listening to yourselves? Do you know what you are even saying?
” ... Are you listening to yourselves? Do you know what you are even saying?”
Claud, amihow, Arthur McGowan et al certainly don’t have the first notion of what their critics are saying.
I’m clear on what I’m saying, but it appears baby steps are needed:
If you are fighting a war, you must win the war first.
Why?
Because if you lose the war, all talk of morality stops. If you win the war, you may talk about anything you like. Including morality.
To reverse that sequence is not a demonstration of superior morals. It is flippancy and heedlessness of the most odious sort: if you lose the war while congratulating yourselves on your lofty moral stature, the innocents and noncombatants who perish along with you will not thank you. They will curse your memory.
Their survival means more than your sense of moral fitness.