Christianity and Acceptance of Conventional and Nuclear War Essay

Pro Nuclear warfare should be used when the time is right and a war needs to be ended

Just war can be traced back to the pagan teachings, which was later refined by Christian leaders to justify their followers into going to war (Cahill, 2005). St. Augustine was identified as the first to offer his view on war and justice, viewing war as a necessary evil if peace and justice were to come and labeling it as something practical when conflict arises. Later on, St. Thomas Aquinas revised Augustine’s version and added three more conditions: the war had to be waged by the proper authority, the cause had to be just, and the intentions had to be right. All of these additions and refinements lead to the same just war theory that we are familiar with today (Baer, 2006).

Today, the integration of Christianity and psychology is becoming more increasingly recognized. The integration begins with understanding the sinful state of the human condition as viewed from a biblical perspective. It continues with being faithful to Christian stewardship and not only embracing theology but also the psychology of human behavior (Entwistle, 2015). A more accurate and complete understanding of human nature and function is provided through the integration of Christianity and psychology. The Allies model confirms that Christian theology and psychology are both subject to God’s authority, and exemplifies the best integrative relationship between Christianity and psychology (Entwistle, 2015). This paper will discuss the integration of Christianity and psychology through the Allies model. It will define integration, review reasons and explanations of why Christianity and psychology should be integrated. As well as look at different methods of knowing, the Allies model concept, and the two books idea along with strengths and weaknesses of this model.

Daisaku Ikeda, a spiritual leader for Japan once commented, ‘Japan learned from the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki that tragedy wrought by nuclear weapons must never be repeated and that humanity and nuclear weapons cannot coexist.’ The world has experienced the bombings of Japan, of Pearl Harbor and the conflict of the Cold War, but even with these conflicts present in our history, warning us of the effects, these meaning have not carried through into society today. Currently in the Middle East, we are witnessing the elements of a modern day cold war starting to appear. Israel and Iran have been in arguments and disagreements about nuclear weaponry since 2012. Their different religious view and ideologies has flourished into more than a religious tension but that of a modern day cold way.

The use of nuclear weaponry, or threat thereof, in a time of war could be a major aspect in the result of the war. It could either further progress the length and casualty occurrence in the war, or it could result in an immediate halt of conflict due to the amount of casualties and catastrophic damage from the bomb. However, just because the use of such weaponry is potentially necessary, does not mean it is ethical. The chaos caused by a nuclear weapon has the potential to scar the lives

I believe that every argument in favor of what people call a just and necessary war or physical self-defense goes against the letter and spirit of the bible. The bible is the greatest enemy of war, as soon as people start understanding the bible people will stop fighting. Wars go against the bible and if people don’t agree with that then they don’t understand the bible.

Even though the case of morality against using nuclear weapons is a very strong one it is very important to place their use in light of World War II and the total war that the world was experiencing. During World War II the vast majority of the world had thrown aside morality in favor a deadly struggle to defend against the large scale attacks of expansionists and fascism. The use of conventional bombing by either side was widespread and considered justified use of military force even though this form of attack produced massive civilian casualties. These mass bombing attacks were centered on crippling the enemy’s ability to produce war machines which were legal military targets and in so doing this type of bombing was considered justified use of military force. When America attacked Hiroshima and Nagasaki they bombed legitimate military targets and President Truman and his advisors considered them justifiable

Before waging a war, it is always a good idea to think of what the possible outcome could be in the situation; to look ahead before making an unalterable, life-changing move. In many cases, different people, not just religious, think of the Just War Theory as a plausible cause to take a look at before sending troops to fight a war that deem not necessary to be fought. In the fall of 2001, September 11, it was a day in infamy, a day that will always be remembered. Terrorist members attacked the United States through different tactics, and led to an almost never ending difference between the nations. Just War is the theory that war must have a just cause, which means force may be used only to correct a grave, public evil. It must also have the right intention, which means that force may be used only for that purpose, only to correct a wrong doing. It must have legitimate authority: only public authorities and officers have the ability to wage the war. It must have comparative justice which means that the goods must outweigh the bads, no matter how bad the other side hurt you. The probability of success must weigh in to it. How it will be effected overall- how much destruction is expected, how the goods are weighed out by the bads, etc. And finally, is it a last resort. That being said, force can only be used after there have been peaceful alternatives. All of that being said, the question of the United States being sent

Due to the "highly subjective nature of most scientific theorizing... [we should] let the Bible speak for itself and modify our scientific view of origins accordingly." (as cited in Downey, D., & Porter, S., 2009).

Politics and religion in the world of today aren’t subjects that generally go hand in hand in our own society. This was not always the case however; in Europe the two were synonymous up until relatively recently, (recently meant in the loosest sense of the word,) and are still closely tied in foreign parts of the world, the most obvious example being the Middle East. The duos intimate relationship was exemplified during the late sixteenth century, extending into the seventeenth century, during a series of wars which would later on come to be called “the wars of religion.” But is this title completely appropriate? For wars claiming to be centered on religion, they seem to carry an awfully heavy load of political baggage. In fact, one

In Ernest Hemingway's A Farewell to Arms, the main character, Lieutenant Fredric Henry, undergoes a dramatic change in perspective over the course of the novel. It is most interesting to see how the Lieutenant's views on religion change as he becomes more involved in the war.

I disagree with Kenneth Waltz’s position that nuclear proliferation makes the world a safer place, and how best to measure the spread of nuclear weapons, particularly in regimes that are developing, unstable, or “third-world.”1 While some scholars see nuclear weapons as a threat to stability and peace due to their mass destruction capability and the potential for horrific fallout triggered by ethnic and geopolitical instability, others see those weapons as holding the power to maintain an appropriate balance of power between opposing regimes at times of tension and during periods of low level conflict. This debate is reflected in international relations.

People are flawed. This is not new information. Ever since Eve took a bite of the fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, sin has constantly tainted every part of humanity. Violence, wars, bloodshed, and death are all side-effects of the sin-curse. When looking at foreign policy matters in the Middle East, many fail to remember the fallen state of humanity. Still peering through the rose-colored glasses, so many United States citizens continue to hope for “world peace.” Scripture says “and ye shall hear of wars and rumours of wars: see that ye be not troubled: for all these things must come to pass, but the end is not yet.” There will never be world peace until Christ returns. As such, opponents of America’s Pro-Israel stance should bear the terrible travesties of sin in mind before completely rejecting the current, Scriptural policy.

There is no dispute that the Middle East, for the past century, has been a region plagued with tension and conflict. Differences in religion and ethnicity have been the source for hundreds of thousands of deaths, and the progression of those issues have shown very little evidence of slowing down as the bloodshed continues. Many parties on the global scale fear that the combination of evolving technology and weaponry, and desire to harness nuclear power, is fueling the hatred that some of the countries in the area have for one another and will eventually lead to an extremely disastrous nuclear war. As a result, international global organizations, such as the United Nations, have been working to prevent such an outcome. They are

The previously accepted nature of war stemmed from the Clausewitzian trinity: war is emotional, an experience wrought with passion, violence, and enmity; uncertainty, chance, and friction pervade the medium of war; however, because war is not an end in itself, and because, as a means, it is subordinate to its political aims, war must be subject to reason (Clausewitz, 89). With the first employment of nuclear weapons, however, strategists and military theorists began to question Clausewitz’s foundational ideas (Winkler, 58). Similarly, Allan Winkler, in agreeing with Bernard Brodie’s thesis, opines that the advent of nuclear weapons fundamentally changed the nature of war. Winkler’s assertion stems from his argument that such a nuclear duel would yield a post-war environment incapable of recovery for any parties involved (62). He further describes Brodie’s realization that “[t]he atomic bomb is not just another and more destructive weapon to be added to an already long list. It is something which threatens to make the rest of the list relatively unimportant.” (62) Ultimately, Winkler abridges Brodie’s assessment in stating that “the United States was caught in the paradox of having to prepare for a war it did not plan to fight.” (63)