Satan Soldier Pope Francis: ‘There Is No Such Thing as a Just War’— He is Wrong and Very Evil!

SRH: In a nutshell, just war theory holds that armed conflict is only acceptable when it is used as a last option by a legitimate authority for moral purposes and with moral means. As with most real-world concerns, whether or not a specific fight fits the requirements for fair war is constantly debatable. It is also vital to differentiate between the concepts of a righteous war and a holy war. The notion of fighting holy battles is not supported by either just war theory or the Bible.

The Christian application of just war theory is based on numerous biblical principles: humans have intrinsic worth (Genesis 1:27) but are also intrinsically wicked (Genesis 1:27). (Romans 3:10). Human government was established by God expressly to ensure order and justice (Romans 13:1–5; 1 Peter 2:14). Humanity as a whole, and Christians in particular, have a moral obligation to work for a more equitable society (Proverbs 21:3; Micah 6:8; Matthew 5:13–16). This commitment, however, does not involve the use of violence to "promote" the religion (John 18:36). Furthermore, God's ban on killing is limited to murder (Exodus 20:13), not capital punishment (Genesis 9:6), righteous battle (Psalm 18:34), or legal self-defense (Luke 22:36). At the same time, the Bible condemns violence, vengeance, and hate (Romans 12:19; Proverbs 20:22; Galatians 5:19–24).

The most widely accepted form of just war theory is based on these biblical ideas, which are reduced into five basic components. According to just war theory, any fight that does not fulfill all of these criteria is "unjust" and morally wrong. It is critical to note that this approach cannot eliminate all potential controversies. There will always be disagreements over whether a particular war—or any war—fits these criteria.

The following are the five essential conditions of a "just war":

1. A lawful government declares a righteous war. According to just war theory, autonomous individuals or organizations cannot operate as vigilantes, claiming the right to conduct violent conflict. This also includes government activities that go beyond established regulations, such as if a national leader orders an assault while disregarding that country's laws, or if a military commander conducted a coup and immediately invaded another nation. Furthermore, before a country engages in hostilities, war—including the desire to attack—must be openly and legally declared. This increases the chances of resolving a conflict, alerts citizens who may be harmed, and pushes the government to legitimize violence ahead of time.

2. A righteous war is a last-ditch effort. Prior to resorting to violence, a country must make every attempt to achieve its objectives by nonviolent methods. Diplomacy, economic or legal activities, and so forth are examples of such acts. This is a fundamental premise of just war theory: war is the consequence of all other choices failing. It is not one of many options. As an extension of this notion, the administration should try to terminate the war as soon as feasible.

3. A just war is one that is waged for a fair cause. The war's planned goal must be ethically correct. Goals such as liberating people from death and persecution or preventing another nation's takeover may fall under this category. An example of an unfair objective might be a desire to obtain more territory or to punish another country for some perceived insult.

4. A righteous war pursues wise objectives. When there is little to no likelihood of success, warfare becomes less justified. This criteria is intended to strike a balance with the idea of a "fair reason." Grandiose concepts cannot be used to justify killing. A minor country would be unwise to begin an invasion of a military superpower—the endeavor is almost certain to fail, rendering the following mayhem worthless. Similarly, a war cannot be justified unless its aims, no matter how noble, are commensurate to the toll of death and damage. The purpose of strengthening another country's educational system, for example, is not a morally legitimate justification to engage in open battle.

5. Moral means are used in a just war. Noble aims or objectives, according to just war theory, do not justify any and all means to gain victory. To put it simply, the aims do not justify the methods. This indicates that a fair war uses appropriate amounts of violence and refrains from using excessive or harsh force. This concept also entails making an attempt to prevent civilian fatalities, excessive damage, or acts that might have an unacceptably negative impact on individuals who are not participating in the fight. "Moral means" includes elements like the treatment of captive troops and civilians, as well as attempts to reconcile when the fight is done.

Almost every violent battle in history has been termed "legitimate" by the party that initiated it. Obviously, this assertion is often untrue. Nonetheless, a legitimate moral principle is not rendered invalid just because it is not obeyed. On the contrary, instances of unjust wars demonstrate how fair war theory may minimize rather than increase bloodshed.

Just war theory recognizes that war is bad—the five conditions are particularly designed to prevent any bloodshed and mayhem unless it is inevitable. To summarize, even in the middle of a fight, fair war theory views war as undesirable and unpleasant. Humane and humane treatment of opponents is a prime example of how Christian ethics has inspired just war theory.

A widespread misperception about just war theory is that Christianity utilizes the conflicts of Israel in the Old Testament to justify current views toward war. God's use of battle in the Old Testament may certainly be used to infer broad truths. Some of these are mirrored in the current idea of just war (Deuteronomy 20:10, 19). However, Scripture makes it plain that Israel's battle in Canaan was not a model for future conquest (Deuteronomy 9:6); neither Judaism nor Christianity have sought to apply the conquest of Canaan in that manner in general. Similarly, there is no justification for war or bloodshed in the name of promoting, expanding, or spreading the gospel (John 18:36; 2 Corinthians 10:4). Such attempts are essentially incompatible with the religion.

A person's views on just war theory are inextricably linked to their views on self-defense. When is it permissible for a Christian to use violence to protect himself? Beyond a personal, defensive level, just war theory maintains that the participation of government is an essential prerequisite for legitimate conflict.

Just war theory is far from Christianity's "official" view on the matter. However, it is the most popular strategy among Christian denominations. Those who prefer a more pacifist reading of Scripture are more inclined to oppose just war theory within biblical Christianity. Few, if any, Christian organisations openly support aggressive or predatory warfare. The reason for the widespread acceptance of just war theory within Christianity is reflected in the doctrine's essential assumption: that violence may be required at times, but only as a last option.