Saul Of Tarsus

[Brother Vinny]

This thread languishes in relative obscurity, while the Mengele thread blossoms. Surely those who I'd intended to see the thread have already done so, and yet, we see no one who'd say an early (pre-Pauline) Christian would have been justified in killing Saul.

[Nihil Obstat]

I'm still watching the thread.

[Patrick]

[quote name='Brother Vinny' post='1890467' date='Jun 14 2009, 02:25 PM']This thread languishes in relative obscurity, while the Mengele thread blossoms. Surely those who I'd intended to see the thread have already done so, and yet, we see no one who'd say an early (pre-Pauline) Christian would have been justified in killing Saul.[/quote]

I don't think an early Christian would have been justified in killing Saul. Jesus brings the message "Bless those who persecute you, pray for those who abuse you." "Pray for your enemies". "Love your enemies." "Turn the other cheek." And, effectively, let them kill you before you them (by Christ's example). I cannot see, in light of Jesus' teachings, how a Christian could be justified in killing Saul.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Patrick' post='1893501' date='Jun 16 2009, 04:44 PM']I don't think an early Christian would have been justified in killing Saul. Jesus brings the message "Bless those who persecute you, pray for those who abuse you." "Pray for your enemies". "Love your enemies." "Turn the other cheek." And, effectively, let them kill you before you them (by Christ's example). I cannot see, in light of Jesus' teachings, how a Christian could be justified in killing Saul.[/quote]
You missed by just a couple days the lovely discussion on whether or not we need to go murder abortionists...

[Patrick]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' post='1893646' date='Jun 16 2009, 05:30 PM']You missed by just a couple days the lovely discussion on whether or not we need to go murder abortionists...[/quote]

LOL!

Well, my objective isn't to post in [i]every[/i] thread on PM...

[Nihil Obstat]

Just thought I'd fill you in so that the context of this thread makes sense.

[Patrick]

Oh! Yes, I see what you mean now -- how these are related.

[dairygirl4u2c]

i wasnt trying to avoid this thread. i just didn't see it.

ultimately, i'd say saul should've been killed, in certain situations.

the ultimate reason i say that, is because we don't go saying 'don't kill hitler' or 'don't kill mengele', just because there was a chance they might've converted.
now, i know some would say that was a just war, and they could've been killed.
i don't see the distinctions as enough to say one is justified and hte other isn't.
but beside just war, there's self defense and defense of others, that would justify killing hitler and mengele when the kllings were about to go down.

if hitler, and mgengel were to be put down. so would tiller. and, by that, so would saul.
saul can count himself lucky by the grace of God that he never was put down, and had a chance, in this life, to convert.

if people are killing three year olds, once a week, to use that analogy again (where it has the same political chance at change as abortion, etc, to make the control group). we wouldn't "do the political process", or "try to change hearts" etc. we'd kill, if not in just war, then in defense of others etc.

the only conclusions we can draw, is that saul probalby in certain situations should've been killed too.

to me, when i see this thread (i've responded to these points before, just not with saul as the hypothetical-- ie when it was 'we shouldn't kill in case he converts' type stuff), i see it as a rationalization.
"you wouldn't kill a bunny rabbit, would you?". this is sort of how it sounds, this thread. i know it's not a perfect analogy, but i'm just trying to make the point.
yes, i would kill a bunny rabbit, in the right situation. and, yes, i would kill brother paul, back when he was the persecuter saul, as well.

when i try to figure out how it is people rationalize letting kids be murdered, as they do here and most places, it does seem to me to come back to some sort of emotive thing rather than a decent argument. it comes down to things like: "i don't know why... i just feel weird about it" (much like killing in just war, killing hitler, pulling the trigger on the electric chair for a lunatic who will escape etc and needs put down-- all probably feel weird at first-- point being, it's not much of a reason) or "it's like you're killing the bunny rabbit" (metaphor for 'killling saul when he might convert", regardless of the fact we don't say that about others that need put down)

these are not just the rants of a noncatholic -- there's respectable catholics here who think this way. just war, and defense of self and others are also catholic doctrines, even if many pasificist christians of yester year or today don't use them etc.
now, perhaps the edges of the doctrines are shaky-- but when it comes down to it, we know we'd defer the edges of the theory to saving the three year olds who die every week. -- so, we should defer the edges of the theory to those who are abpout to be born too. (late term ones, i mean)(various qualifications for why earlier on is different, as the other thread indicates)

------

in a sense, saul should've been killed before hilter when hitler was dictrator but before WWII. the reason, hitler wasn't involved in a just war, and he himself didn't perpetrate the killings. if defense of others etc was involved, the killing would've had to be of those who pulled the trigger. hitler was only the manager type.
saul, and tiller, both 'pulled the trigger' whereas, hitler did not.
now, i don't think i really believe all that. (why i said 'in a sense'). hitler was cause enough, proximately speaking, to have been killed. but, one can see by this last paragraph, what happens when you try to be rigid about the theories -- you take them to the point the were never intended-- indications of what's the only possible ways of killing--- instead of only meant to be indications of specific examples of what is okay.
(plus, in the case of tiller, and saul, etc-- even current theory is arguably enough to have put them down)

Edited July 11, 2009 by dairygirl4u2c

[dairygirl4u2c]

i don't know if the earlier christians ever fought back. if they didn't, and we shoujldn't-- then my guess is all the theory that's built up about just war and defense of self and others, is man made and not the way things ought to be. (im always open, theoretically, to being wrong). as it stands, those doctrines do exist, though.

there's also a distinction, the idea 'we're to take it, cause we're to just take persecution for being christian'. even if that idea is valid, which im not sure it is, that doens't necessarily apply to when kids are being killed. ie, 'it's okay if ya kill me... but once you start killing little kids, you've crossed the line.'
or, maybe we can let the saul's live, or people persecute chrsitians-- given they might be thinking they are doing God's will etc, and given they mean well they might convert. i suppose ya might apply that reasoinngin to the abortion doctors, but i doubt they think they're doing God'swill anyway. more than likely, they are to be distinguished from those who persecute in the name of God. (and i don't think the initial point is all that great either ie 'let em live cause they mean well per God'-- i'm just trying to throw a bone to those who oppose my arguments, ie the bone is needed cause it doesn't seem to me they have much else)

Edited July 11, 2009 by dairygirl4u2c

[dairygirl4u2c]

interesting thread and response.

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='Brother Vinny' date='08 June 2009 - 09:41 PM' timestamp='1244515282' post='1886834']
So, the question is this: prior to Saul's Damascus Road experience, would a Christian have been justified in slaughtering him?
[/quote]

Yes. He was on his way to kill innocent people. How on earth could you think it would [i]not [/i]be moral to kill him in order to stop him?

~Sternhauser

Edited January 14, 2010 by Sternhauser

[Era Might]

[quote name='Sternhauser' date='13 January 2010 - 08:49 PM' timestamp='1263433748' post='2036594']
Yes. He was on his way to kill innocent people. How on earth could you think it would [i]not [/i]be moral to kill him in order to stop him?

~Sternhauser
[/quote]
I would say that the early Christians were, in a certain sense, not innocent people; or rather, they were not civilians. They were soldiers for Christ. Their weapon was "the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God" (Ephesians 6:17). For the early Christians to have resorted to earthly weapons would have been, in a certain sense, to desert the army of Christ for another army, to become traitors. That is why they did not kill people like Saul. They all understood that they were soldiers for Christ, and they fought with spiritual weapons. If anyone was going to be killed, the early Christians wanted it to be they themselves, for the blood of the martyrs is the seed of the Church.

[quote]Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God; for it is written, "Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord." No, "if your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him drink; for by so doing you will heap burning coals upon his head." Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.

--Romans 12:19-21[/quote]

[dairygirl4u2c]

im not sure they never killed, but that's just speculation. and, if they didn't, im not sure they were in the right.

but what is the case, is that i dont see the distinction, between them killing a persecutor like all that... and some christian now, using commonly accepted catholic arguments, 'defense of self', 'defense of others', 'just war' etc etc. they can't both be right. maybe if jews started killing us, givcen it's in the name of God, or muslims, we're jut to take that? yeah, id like to see the day when muslims start attacking christians, and them saying it's their duty to take it...

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='Era Might' date='13 January 2010 - 09:05 PM' timestamp='1263434708' post='2036608']
I would say that the early Christians were, in a certain sense, not innocent people; or rather, they were not civilians. They were soldiers for Christ. Their weapon was "the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God" (Ephesians 6:17). For the early Christians to have resorted to earthly weapons would have been, in a certain sense, to desert the army of Christ for another army, to become traitors. That is why they did not kill people like Saul. They all understood that they were soldiers for Christ, and they fought with spiritual weapons. If anyone was going to be killed, the early Christians wanted it to be they themselves, for the blood of the martyrs is the seed of the Church.
[/quote]

Why just "early" Christians? Did the nature of Christianity change?

Our Lord was talking about vengeance. Defense of the innocent is not vengeful.

~Sternhauser

[Era Might]

[quote name='Sternhauser' date='13 January 2010 - 09:59 PM' timestamp='1263437968' post='2036645']
Why just "early" Christians? Did the nature of Christianity change?

Our Lord was talking about vengeance. Defense of the innocent is not vengeful.

~Sternhauser
[/quote]
It seems clear to me that the early Christians never killed, in defense or otherwise. I have my opinions as to [i]why[/i] they never killed. But as I said, it seems clear to me that they never killed.