Saul Of Tarsus

[Mr.Cat]

[quote name='Era Might' date='16 January 2010 - 05:16 PM' timestamp='1263680193' post='2038732']Killing other humans is definitely a natural evil, and when we kill another human we have been defeated by the prince of this world, who "was a murderer from the beginning" (John 8:44). For Christians, the struggle for peace is a struggle to live up to "the beginning" (i.e., before the Fall of Adam and Eve) which Christ has restored. But we are constantly struggling between living in this fallen world, and living in the Eschaton, and sometimes it may be necessary to kill, even though that means we have failed to live up to the Eschaton. That is why we pray for Christ's return, when we will have a new heavens and a new earth, and when "death shall be no more" (Revelation 21:4).

The kingdoms of this world are concerned with preserving the things of this world, which is why they may sometimes legitimately resort to the sword of this world. But the Church's vocation is to witness to the Eschaton, and that is why I believe that the sword of this world has no place being used in the name of, in service of, or in defense of, the Gospel/Church; the Church's only sword must be "the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God" (Ephesians 6:17).[/quote]Okay... Are we disagreeing?

[dairygirl4u2c]

"yes, indeed, those who live by the sword will die by the sword; but that just means not to live by the sword. Using the sword when justified is not living by the sword. "

i agree with al on that point. also, true, when the apostle was going to attack the soldier trying to take jesus, jesus said no, and said "live by the sword die by it" etc. but, four other points. one is the verses that Al refers to about getting a sword. two, is when Jesus was talking and praying to God in John he says things like "no one requires me to lay down my life, but i do it out of my own volition" or something to that effect- indicating perhaps it wasnt so much that Jesus wasnt justified to fight back, or at least run away, but he wasn't going to. three, Jesus when talking to pilate said "if my kingdom were of this world, my followers would be up and arms and saving me" or something to that effect. (which one might say is contradictory given he told that soldier not to fight back- maybe it was given he was the only one or?) perhaps in this situation fighting back wasn't justfied, but with more help (kinda like the abortion 'resistence' needed for just war), it'd be justified? or maybe in this situation, it's living by the sword instead of goig through the legal system etc?
fourth, is jsut the 180 change talked about per 'defnese of self etc' and the idea of complete pacifism.

i see plenty to minimize the 'live by the sword verse' and play up the other stuff/

John 18 "36Jesus said, “My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jews. But now my kingdom is from another place.” " ( not that they'd have been justified to have saved him necessarily- he might just be saying 'they'd fight back even if nto jsutified'- i think he's condoning the fighting, though)

Edited February 15, 2010 by dairygirl4u2c

[dairygirl4u2c]

some pretty formidalbe quotes, from the early church, though, about radical pascifism.
http://rogueminister.wordpress.com/2008/11/19/quotes-the-early-church-on-war-and-violence/

it has formidable characters such as iranaeous and ignatius. etc
not that that's an exhaustive look at early history though.

im curious as to the pascifists of this thread, and when Jesus says "my servants would fight for me, if i had more of this world"

[dairygirl4u2c]

"So he made a whip out of cords, and drove all from the temple area, both sheep and cattle; he scattered the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables" (John 2:15).
not violence, but not exactly passive.

john 18, " 11Then said Jesus unto Peter, Put up thy sword into the sheath: the cup which my Father hath given me, shall I not drink it?" this goes sorta witht hat passage in john, where he says "no one requires me to give me life, i give it out of my own accord" (which seems to say that it's not even a matter of whats 'right or wrong' being compelled to make him give his life, he simply chose to, it seems despite what he's entitled to. a lot of reading into this, though, sure. )

one person's argument, thoht it's reading into it:
"On several occasions Jesus Christ evaded an angry crowd rather than giving in to their intent to kill him (Luke 4:28-30, John 8:58-59, John 10:35-39). It was not yet the time for him to sacrifice himself for the sins of many. When the time did come, and his disciples tried to defend him, Jesus said, "Do you think I cannot call on my Father, and he will at once put at my disposal more than twelve legions of angels?'" (Matthew 26:53). Jesus was quite capable of taking care of himself if he wanted to be defended. And his statement that he could call on the Father did not only mean that he had the ability to defend himself, but that he was morally justified in doing so as well. He was under no inherent obligation to die, although he and the Father did plan for him to die."

[dairygirl4u2c]

here is a writer who talks about the military, and shows some examples of early church supporters of it.

"When pacifists seek to prove their position, they frequently overstate their case, as they do with Origen. Origen did not want Christians to be in the military because of his spiritual and heavenly view of the Christian life. Yet he recorded this prayer of his for us:

For those fighting in a righteous cause, and for the King who reigns righteously, that whatsoever is opposed to those who act righteously be destroyed.

The same can be said of Tertullian. While it is clear that he did not want Christians to participate in the army because they would become defiled with idolatry, nowhere did Tertullian condemn the state for having an army. Neither did he condemn nations for going to war. He declared:

Without ceasing, for all our emperors, we offer prayer. We pray for life prolonged; for security to the empire; for protection to the imperial house; for brave armies….

If Origen or Tertullian were against the use of force in principle at any time, by anyone, including the state, they would hardly be found praying for those involved in righteous wars, that their soldiers would be brave in the destruction of their enemies.

When modern pacifists seek to prove their position by stating that the early church taught pure pacifism, they are overstating the case. Nowhere did the early Fathers teach that the use of force is intrinsically and morally wrong. The most the pacifists can come up with is an argument that some Christians did not believe they could, for conscience sake, because of idolatry, be involved in the military."
http://www.churchinhistory.org/pages/misc/ch-war-pac.htm

that links has a whole host of things, that say at least military joining and lethal force in that context, is okay. eg, how christians celebrated 'military' activity on their tombstones etc.

Edited February 16, 2010 by dairygirl4u2c

[dairygirl4u2c]

it seems like the only way to reconcile "those who live by the sword die by it" and "if you dont have a sword, go buy one" is to say that self defense etc is okay, or at least killing is okay at some point, and the 'live by teh sword verse' simply means those who make it their way of life die that way, but not perself defense or whateveris okay to use it.
that's the only way to make the verses reconcilable. otherwise, you'd be buying a sword for no purpose, to look tough? there would be no purpose.

[dairygirl4u2c]

"I come not to bring peace, but to bring a sword" (Matthew 10:34)

here's another verse, that at least on its face, seems to support the contra 'pasfist' ideas being thrown out, here.

course, there's interpretations, as there always seem to be. such as
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/But_to_bring_a_sword
with the best contra my point, predicting violence, and metaphor

Edited March 14, 2010 by dairygirl4u2c

[Sternhauser]

Here's a story of Jesus precluding one of his follower's would-be "wars of truth."

Luke 9.

51 And it came to pass, when the days of his assumption were accomplishing, that he steadfastly set his face to go to [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08344a.htm"]Jerusalem[/url].
52 And he sent messengers before his face: and going, they entered into a city of the [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13416a.htm"]Samaritans[/url], to prepare for him.
53 And they received him not, because his face was of one going to [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08344a.htm"]Jerusalem[/url].
54 And when his [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05029a.htm"]disciples[/url], James and [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08492a.htm"]John[/url], had seen this, they said: Lord, will you that we command fire to come down from [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07170a.htm"]heaven[/url] and consume them?
55 And turning, he rebuked them, saying: you [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08673a.htm"]know[/url] not of [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05028b.htm"]what spirit[/url] you are.
56 The [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14144a.htm"]Son of man[/url] came not to destroy [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14153a.htm"]souls[/url], but to save. And they went into another town.

[url="http://www.newadvent.org/bible/luk009.htm"]http://www.newadvent...ible/luk009.htm[/url]

Do you think that the disciples meant a "spiritual fire?" I do not. I think they meant a physical fire. St. Paul said it was a good thing to do good to one's enemies, whereby one "heaps coals of fire upon their heads." That is a different kind of fire. I think the disciples really wanted to drop napalm on the Samaritans, but they just didn't know the name for the stuff yet.

But Jesus rebuked them, and not only did he rebuke them, he said, "You know not of what spirit you are." In other words, "You'd best figure out which wind you are going to let fill your sails, because the winds come from opposite directions, and they are going to two very different places."

And Jesus said of their attempt to use physical force for a spiritual end, "The Son of man came not to destroy souls, but to save." Why would Jesus talk about destroying souls, when the disciples were talking about destroying human beings? Because destroying human beings as a means of spreading/protecting intangible truths scandalizes and alienates souls.

There's nothing wrong with violence. I simply don't want it being used by men who have moral compasses that have already anticipated a polar shift. The civilian and military "leaders" who have hundreds of civilian cities targeted with nuclear weapons. They've got boomers haunting coastlines all over the world, ready to unleash upon civilian populations the closest thing to physical hell that men have been able to create.

These people? The civilian and military personnel with their willing (though perhaps not eager) fingers above the nuclear buttons, with thousands of warheads aimed at civilian populations? These are the "men" of whom "Catholic leaders" say "Catholic soldiers can assume that their leaders are sending them to fight in a war fought for just purposes?" [i]Really?[/i] If you think you can trust these men, who have, time after time, thoroughly proven that they have absolutely no respect for the principles of a just war, to send you into a "just war," knock yourself out. If you really trust the moral judgement of men who are willing to deliberately kill millions of civilians, go for it. But know that you are literally following insane men. They are incapable of perceiving certain moral realities of a gargantuan scale and import. I used to like the Kool Aid, too. It was sweet and yummy to my lower appetites. Everybody who was cool drank it. But my brain told me not to keep drinking it.

No. I put down the Kool Aid a long time ago. I'll simply remember the words of Marine Corps General Smedley Butler, twice the recipient of the Medal of Honor: "Like all the members of the military profession, I never had a thought of my own until I left the service. My mental faculties remained in suspended animation while I obeyed the orders of higher-ups. This is typical with everyone in the military service."

~Sternhauser

Edited March 15, 2010 by Sternhauser