I'm sick of the rabid Islamophobia on these boards...

[Montalban]

Here we go with more post-modernist deconstructionalism which denies meanings to terminologies!

There are a billion Muslims in the world, as diverse and divided along sectarian, national, ethnic, class, and other lines as the two billion Christians are.

Can you really say that they all have exactly the same beliefs and interpret or live out those beliefs in the same ways?

Yes. By the mere device of using English we give meaning to terms. When we use the term “Moslem” we must have a common understanding for what it means, else we’d not be able to converse. If I said “I went to the hardware store to buy paint my Moslem” it would be obvious to you that the term means something different to me than it does to you.

The term Moslem however means something similar to both of us, else you’d not be able to have this conversation. Within the confines of the term “Moslem” there is indeed a great breadth of belief, but commonality to all.

Moslems believe in al-lah. If one says “Muhammed wasn’t his prophet, but a green chicken” then you’d be able to assess this man’s claims with the beliefs that come under the term “Moslem”

“Jihad” has a range of meanings,

Truism.

and not all Muslims consider “armed struggle for the faith” to be its primary meaning.

Truism. Some “Christians” believe Jesus had kids. Also a truism. Neither statement negates the centrality of Jihad to Islam

All you need to is pick up Bostom’s book and look at centuries of opinion across several Islamic schools of thought.

When Muslims perceive themselves to be under threat (as when non-Muslim armies invade their lands), they are apt to describe their struggle against those invaders in terms of a “war against the infidels.”

And they can also perceive as a threat even the ‘invasion’ of Western culture.

Not all Muslims take these verses as a license for aggression against non-Muslims.

More truisms!

The gist of your argument is to deny a central meaning to Islam and yet you use the term “Moslem” as in “Not all Moslems”, you must have a ‘set’ of people you’re talking about.

And then you pile truism upon truism

 

[Montalban]

(cont.)

Moderate Muslims feel caught between extremist Muslims and Western powers whom they don’t see as innocent of oppressing and attacking Muslims.

Westerners should be able at least to admit that they have played a part in bringing chaos to most of the Islamic world in the past two centuries. If Westerners are not honest about the wrongs they have done, how can Muslims, the weaker party globally, be expected to look honestly at themselves and admit their own faults and crimes?

For a great many, if not most, Muslims Islam is a political community almost in the same way as for Americans the USA is a political community – the amount of righteous dissent and protest in both political communities is not that different, both communities display group-think and punish those who do not toe the party line.

Islamic Jihad began centuries before there was a concept of “The West”.

Jihad began in the time of Muhammed. At that time there were no 'Western nations" such as Britian, France, Spain, Italy, and certainly no Israel nor the USA.

It’s very easy to make Islam to be the victim, all you need to do is pretend Islamic aggression only began a few decades ago.

Another book I’ll recommend which I think you’ll avoid is
*The Decline of Eastern Christianity Under Islam : From Jihad to Dhimmitude : Seventh-Twentieth Century *by Bat Ye’or

Islamic oppression was written into the Koran where non-Moslems were given several options
a) death
b) oppression
or
c) conversion

Under b) they were given a legal status, which apologists pretend were a set of ‘rights’, but was inferior to that of Moslems.
you had to
a) wear special clothing
b) pay a special tax
c) cease from seeking converts
d) cease from building new churches
e) give up the notion of fairness before the courts

etc.

Note a) predates by centuries the Nazi idea of the yellow Star of David for Jews. The Nazis simply were followers of modes of oppression here (they even took the idea of the ‘ovens’ from the Turks who used them on Christian Armenians)

 

[Athanasiy]

Our Christian beliefs supercede governmental actions; politics are mere human inventions Christianity is directly from God who says we are to sacrifice ourselves and submit to them unless their laws directly contradict God’s moral law of justice and that’s why we Christians don’t go around and kill ourselves unjustly in suicide bombings which murder the inocent including the poor children. And for what its worth to you, the US makes great effort in bombing military targets and avoiding civilian casualties, however colateral damage is an unfortunate part of blowing things up. And if the US purposefully targeted civilians in the countries it has bombed there wouldn’t be any buildings left standing.

 

[Athanasiy]

…I am not sure what exact anecdote from Jesus’ life you are referring to here – you will have to cite your New Testament source on this.

…

Christianity has nothing to do with pacifism.

Matthew 10:. 34
"Do not think that I have come to bring peace on earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword.’’

 

[Palladio]

nonsumd;2605438:

…I am not sure what exact anecdote from Jesus’ life you are referring to here – you will have to cite your New Testament source on this.

…

Christianity has nothing to do with pacifism.

Matthew 10:. 34
"Do not think that I have come to bring peace on earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword.’’

Context: sword is a figure of speech. The full passage does not address war, but relations among family members and civil society.

 

[Athanasiy]

The “full” quote, according to the NASB translation of the Bible, reads (Jesus speaking):

“Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I came to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a man’s enemies will be the members of his household. He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me; and he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who does not take his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me. He who has found his life will lose it, and he who has lost his life for My sake will find it.” (Matthew 10:34-39 NASB)
The Lukan parallels (12:49–53,14:25–33) read:

NASB
" 49 I have come to cast fire upon the earth; and how I wish it were already kindled! 50 But I have a baptism* to undergo, and how distressed I am until it is accomplished! 51 Do you suppose that I came to grant peace on earth? I tell you, no, but rather division; 52 for from now on five members in one household will be divided, three against two and two against three. 53 They will be divided, father* against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against mother, mother-in-law against daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against mother-in-law. (Luke 12:49-53)
KJV
"49 I am come to send fire on the earth; and what will I, if it be already kindled? 50 But I have a baptism to be baptized with; and how am I straitened till it be accomplished! 51 Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division: 52 For from henceforth there shall be five in one house divided, three against two, and two against three. 53 The father shall be divided against the son, and the son against the father; the mother against the daughter, and the daughter against the mother; the mother in law against her daughter in law, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. (Luke 12:49-53)
Verse comparison
NASB
“If anyone comes to Me, and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be My disciple.” (Luke 14:26)
And in Luke 22:35-38

“But now, whoever has a money belt is to take it along, likewise also a bag, and whoever has no sword is to sell his coat and buy one.” (Luke 22:36 NASB)
And the related Gospel of Thomas 16 (non-canonical) (SV) reads:

“Perhaps people think that I have come to cast peace upon the world. They do not know that I have come to cast conflicts upon the earth: fire, sword, war. For there will be five in a house: there’ll be three against two and two against three, father against son and son against father, and they will stand alone.”

 

[Palladio]

The “full” quote, according to the NASB translation of the Bible, reads (Jesus speaking):

“Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I came to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a man’s enemies will be the members of his household. He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me; and he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who does not take his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me. He who has found his life will lose it, and he who has lost his life for My sake will find it.” (Matthew 10:34-39 NASB)
The Lukan parallels (12:49–53,14:25–33) read:

NASB
" 49 I have come to cast fire upon the earth; and how I wish it were already kindled! 50 But I have a baptism* to undergo, and how distressed I am until it is accomplished! 51 Do you suppose that I came to grant peace on earth? I tell you, no, but rather division; 52 for from now on five members in one household will be divided, three against two and two against three. 53 They will be divided, father* against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against mother, mother-in-law against daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against mother-in-law. (Luke 12:49-53)
KJV
"49 I am come to send fire on the earth; and what will I, if it be already kindled? 50 But I have a baptism to be baptized with; and how am I straitened till it be accomplished! 51 Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division: 52 For from henceforth there shall be five in one house divided, three against two, and two against three. 53 The father shall be divided against the son, and the son against the father; the mother against the daughter, and the daughter against the mother; the mother in law against her daughter in law, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. (Luke 12:49-53)
Verse comparison
NASB
“If anyone comes to Me, and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be My disciple.” (Luke 14:26)
And in Luke 22:35-38

“But now, whoever has a money belt is to take it along, likewise also a bag, and whoever has no sword is to sell his coat and buy one.” (Luke 22:36 NASB)
And the related Gospel of Thomas 16 (non-canonical) (SV) reads:

“Perhaps people think that I have come to cast peace upon the world. They do not know that I have come to cast conflicts upon the earth: fire, sword, war. For there will be five in a house: there’ll be three against two and two against three, father against son and son against father, and they will stand alone.”

Yes, I know the whole passage–as I just implied–and nothing in it justifies your remark. If it did, it would justify killing one’s own family members, for starters. Which is stupid and disgusting. Christ is speaking of division within the family where some would and some would not follow Him.

As for your steamrolling, you still make no argument.

But you already got off on the wrong foot: this is Catholic website, not a ‘Christian’ one: the RCC has developed a doctrine of just war. If that suits you, look into it.

 

[nonsumd]

Here we go with more post-modernist deconstructionalism which denies meanings to terminologies!

Yes. By the mere device of using English we give meaning to terms. When we use the term “Moslem” we must have a common understanding for what it means, else we’d not be able to converse…

You are reading deconstruction into what I am saying.

Of course, we can say that in order for us to speak of “Muslims,” we must recognize that the category of people we want to designate as “Muslims” share a certain set of beliefs.

Of course, to be Muslim includes believing in ideas like “Muhammad was sent by God as His last prophet to bring His definitive and incorruptible revelation.”

All Muslims agree with this (I can say the “all” here more confidently than I could say “All Christians believe in the divinity of Christ,” since manifestly quite a few do not).

But does being Muslim necessarily include holding to ideas like “all non-believers should die” (as I have often read on these boards) or “converting the whole world to Islam should be accomplished through military conquest of un-believers”?

Many, many Muslims would disagree with those propositions.

Neither statement negates the centrality of Jihad to Islam

And *jihad *does have a wider range of meanings than just “armed struggle for the faith.”

You seem to be characterizing that particular meaning of jihad as some sort of “doctrinal DNA” that Muslims can’t lose unless they renounce Islam altogether.

Many, many Muslims consider jihad to mean primarily '“the struggle to overcome the evil within oneself” and regard the “armed struggle” meaning (particularly if that has been meant to entail things like suicide bombing and forced conversion) as a perversion.

And they can also perceive as a threat even the ‘invasion’ of Western culture.

“Western culture” could mean any number of things, not just democracy but also pornocracy, things Western Christians consider as threats to their culture.

And has the "‘invasion’ of Western culture ever been going on without some kind of actual manipulation, interference, or aggression by Western powers?

 

[nonsumd]

Islamic Jihad began centuries before there was a concept of “The West”…

Now who sounds like a “post-modernist”!

Jihad began in the time of Muhammed…

It’s very easy to make Islam to be the victim, all you need to do is pretend Islamic aggression only began a few decades ago.

If I were talking to a Muslim talking nonsense like “Islam spread only through peaceful means,” then I would happily point out to him that the Arab armies that swept out of the peninsula in the 7th c. were not just out for a picnic excursion.

When we are speaking of such communities ranging over vast stretches of time and space as we are when we speak of “Islam” or “Christianity”/“The West,” if we are honest with ourselves we must admit that we cannot reduce a whole such community to the role of either “vicitim” or “victimizer.”

Muslims have oppressed non-Muslims, including Christians. Christians have oppressed non-Christians, including Muslims. Recognizing this does not excuse either side of wrongdoing.

Islamic oppression was written into the Koran where non-Moslems were given several options
a) death
b) oppression
or
c) conversion

This is also written into the Qur’an (sura al-Ma’idah 65-68, Dawood translation, emphasis added):

If the People of the Book [Jews and Christians] accept the true faith and keep from evil, We will pardon their sins and admit them to the gardens of delight. If they observe the Torah and the Gospel and what has ben revealed to them from their Lord, they shall enjoy abundance from above and from beneath. There are some among them who are righteous; but there among them who do nothing but evil… God does not guide the unbelievers.Say: People of the Book, you will attain nothing until you observe the Torah and the Gospel and that which has been revealed to you from your Lord."

This shows that, as far as Jews and Christians are concerned, a Muslim is enjoined by his Qur’an not to forcibly convert them. The Qur’an instructs Christians and Jews to keep faithful to their respective revelations – of course, with the proviso that they interpret them correctly, i.e. apparently in the light of the Qur’an. The chapter as a whole denounces “unbelievers” but also allows that Jews and Christians could be “believers” even if they do not become Muslims – Muslims seem to be instructed to give Jews and Christians the “benefit of the doubt.”

(cont.)

 

[nonsumd]

(cont.)

Under b) they were given a legal status, which apologists pretend were a set of ‘rights’, but was inferior to that of Moslems.
you had to
a) wear special clothing
b) pay a special tax
c) cease from seeking converts
d) cease from building new churches
e) give up the notion of fairness before the courts

etc.

Note a) predates by centuries the Nazi idea of the yellow Star of David for Jews. The Nazis simply were followers of modes of oppression here (they even took the idea of the ‘ovens’ from the Turks who used them on Christian Armenians)

Do you really want to go there?

It was the Lateran Council of 1215 that first decreed that Jews should wear the Yellow Star, and for its part the Byzantine empire before the rise of Islam systematically discriminated against Jews as well (and I admit these things even though I am a great fan of both that Council and the Byzantine empire and *reject *the idea that Nazi anti-Semitism is merely a continuation of Christian anti-Judaism).

The early Muslims did not invent the idea of dhimmitude for those who did not share their religion. Christians when they took over political power and even the Jews when they enjoyed independence imposed a legally inferior status on non-Christians and non-Jews respectively.

Muslims believed it was only right, that it was God’s will that those with an inferior revelation should not enjoy equality with Muslims – the inferior status of non-Muslims followed upon and made manifest the superior truth of Islam.

Christians thought and legislated and acted according to the same principle with respect to non-Christians, especially the Jews.

The difference between Islam and Christianity is not that the former is inherently intolerant while the latter is inherently tolerant, but that Muslims enjoyed state power from the very beginning of the history of Islam while Christians did so only after Christianity had existed for more than three centuries.

What we can also say is that Islam has a defined system that accords a kind of tolerance to non-Muslims (though not a modern Western type of tolerance), while Christianity does not.

Why not? Because Jesus and the early Christians were not state-builders like Muhammad and the early Muslims (the Christians were more concered in being tolerated by the Roman state than in extending toleration to non-Christians).

Jesus gave no instructions about how to deal politically with non-Christians in a Christian state, so Christians when they took over the state had to come up with policies towards non-Christians using other precedents (arguably, the main one was the practice of the Jewish kingdoms as known from the Old Testament). And what did we Christians come up with? State discrimination against religious minorities, in a word, a counterpart of dhimmitude.

The position of religious minorities like the Jews was more insecure under Christian rule than under Islamic rule (though this was partly due to the fact that Muslims remained a minority for centuries after the initial conquest, so with or without guidance from the Qur’an or Hadith, a pragmatic tolerance was in order).

Islam’s heritage would make it difficult for Islamic societies to accept a modern, Western type of tolerance. We, however, should remind ourselves that Christianity’s heritage (namely Jesus’ silence on the issue of tolerating non-Christians) has allowed not only for the emergence of that modern, Western type of tolerance but also has not historically constrained Christians from being more intolerant (and murderously so) than Muslims.

In fact, modern Western tolerance arose out of horror at the carnage of inter-Christian religious warfare of the 16th and 17th century. One could even argue that it was precisely Christian civilization’s lacking the limited tolerance known in Islamic civilization that made it possible eventually to develop the modern, fuller type of tolerance.

Neither heritage, Christian or Muslim, however, is directly responsible for the modern types of ethnic cleansing – that privilege goes to modern ideologies like nationalism, social Darwinism, eugenics, etc.

Pax Christi, frater!

 

[Rodrigo_Bivar]

Please answer me this, nonsumd,

Did Jesus Christ tell Christians to oppress Muslims or any other people?

Yes or No.

Thank you,
Rodrigo

 

[nonsumd]

Please answer me this, nonsumd,

Did Jesus Christ tell Christians to oppress Muslims or any other people?

Yes or No.

Thank you,
Rodrigo

I think I have answered that.

 

[Rodrigo_Bivar]

I think I have answered that.

Well, unless you correct me I will take it as a No.

Fair?

Now the next question is:
Did Muhammad tell Muslims to oppress Christians?

Yes or No.

Thank you,
Rodrigo

 

[Zooey]

O.K. Go to Saudi Arabia, or Afghanistan, or any other Muslim country and preach to the Muslim with your love and see how far that will get you. I’ll pray to the Holy Theotokos that she would intercede on your behalf, when your head is chopped off, that you are strengthened in our Lord to be a martyr. You just do not know the reality of the situation. THEY WANT ALL CHRISTIANS AND JEWS DEAD.

Precisely right!!

One does not need to delve deeply into the writtings in the koran-hadith or sura…one only needs to look at the violent behavior of many thousands of adherants of Islam and the attitude of hundreds of millions more who support or favor violence towards non Muslims. A huge number of Muslims are at war with their neighbors worldwide…against Sikhs, Budhists, Christians and Jews. There is at least one web site which documents the attacks daily, some of the victims include beheaded Christian school girls in Indonesia.
Recognizing these attacks and understanding who is reponsible and saying so makes one " rabidly islamophobic" to some. I would never defend someone who murdered innocent people and used the Bible to justify it but most Muslims fail to speak out against their co-religionists and use tu quoque arguments to justify their attacks on all other religions. Christian tolerance and charity should not be mistaken for stupidity and blindness. Being tolerant should not include tolerance of intolerance.
Nobody is going to relegate me to dhimmi status or force my conversion…nobody.

I’m with you.
I will not convert!!!

 

[Athanasiy]

Yes, I know the whole passage–as I just implied–and nothing in it justifies your remark. If it did, it would justify killing one’s own family members, for starters. Which is stupid and disgusting. Christ is speaking of division within the family where some would and some would not follow Him.

As for your steamrolling, you still make no argument.

But you already got off on the wrong foot: this is Catholic website, not a ‘Christian’ one: the RCC has developed a doctrine of just war. If that suits you, look into it.

The Christian realism is a virtue.
( though forgotten virtue )

• Luke 3:14. “Then some soldiers asked him [John the Baptist], ‘And what should we do?’ He replied, ‘Don’t extort money and don’t accuse people falsely – be content with your pay.’” John condemned not the profession itself, but the unethical practices associated with it. He nowhere advised soldiers to leave the military.
• Matthew 8:10. “I have not found anyone in Israel with such great faith.” Jesus thus praised the extraordinary faith of the Roman centurion in Capernaum. Jesus did not oppose earthly governments or their right to maintain armies, nor participation of the faithful in those armies.
• Matthew 10:34. “Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.” Christ came to bring peace between people and God. But the inevitable result of Jesus’ coming is conflict between good and evil on the earth.
• Luke 22:36-38. “If you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one.” Thus Jesus warned his disciples of perilous times to come. They would need defense and protection. These are not the words of a pacifist. (This does not conflict with Jesus’ forbidding Peter to use a sword in a religious cause – Matthew 26:52; John 18:36.)
• John 2:15. “So he made a whip out of cords, and drove all from the temple area…” Jesus violently drove the money changers from the outer court of the Temple. The Greek language implies that he used the whip on the money changers as well as on the sheep and oxen. Physical force can be applied with justice.
• Matthew 5:9. “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called sons of God.” Peace is rarely the product of appeasement. In the words of Billy Graham: “There come times when we have to fight for peace.”

• Acts 10:2. This sympathetic reference to the “devout and God-fearing” centurion Cornelius implies an acceptance of the worthiness of a military career.
• Ephesians 6:10-17; 2 Timothy 2:3-4. These and other military allusions of the apostle Paul do not square with a pacifist orientation. A pacifist would never use martial imagery in a positive context. Jesus also used illustrations of war and battle to convey spiritual lessons (Luke 14:31). The New Testament does not renounce using the physical equivalents of spiritual weapons.
• Hebrews 11. Military men are among those recognized as heroes of the faith.
• Romans 12:17-19. “Do not repay anyone evil for evil… If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone… Do not take revenge…” Notice that Paul says, “if it is possible.” Christians are to cultivate peace with everyone – to the extent possible.
Hatred and vengeance must not shape our actions. But there is a difference between vengeance taken with a hateful heart and appropriate self defense. Retributive justice is not the same thing as revenge. There is an appropriate use of force that is neither vengeful nor vicious, and is aimed at seeking peace and justice.

• Romans 13. In this key chapter, the apostle Paul teaches that civil government is ordained by God and should be supported by Christians. Paul was no anarchist.
Those in authority, Paul notes, do not bear the sword for nothing. “He is God’s servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer” (verse 4).
Here is an unambiguous biblical endorsement of the use of the sword for the maintenance of good order. As long as there are those who are bent on doing evil – victimizing innocent, law-abiding citizens – police and military will be necessary to restrain evil and protect the weak and innocent.
God has given human governments authority in the physical sphere. And nowhere in Scripture does one find a prohibition on Christians having full participa-tion in legitimate governmental functions – including the right to use arms to restrain and punish evildoers.

 

[Booklover]

Precisely right!!

I’m with you.
I will not convert!!!

Me neither, fellow Kitty Lover!

Vickie

 

[nonsumd]

Well, unless you correct me I will take it as a No.

Fair?

Now the next question is:
Did Muhammad tell Muslims to oppress Christians?

Yes or No.

Thank you,
Rodrigo

Jesus could not have told the Christians to oppress the Muslims, because there were no Muslims in existence yet. Duh.

Jesus left a lot unsaid, but we Christians have had the rest of the New Testament and all the Old Testament to give us guidance, and we Christians have found more than enough justification to oppress all sorts of people from what we read in the Bible outside the Gospels themselves.

As for your second question, the Qur’an can be interpreted both to command Muslims to oppress non-Muslims and to command them to extend some kind of toleration and even respect to Peoples of the Book. And any Muslim is free to interpret the myriads of passages that describe God as merciful and compassionate and that enjoin Muslims to be merciful and compassionate as meaning that he should be merciful and compassionate even to non-Muslims. And many Muslims have done so throughout history and still do today.

The surest way to making every Muslim an extremist is to tell them, as if you were an extremist yourself, that they are not Muslims if they do not follow an extremist, literalist interpretation of their religion (and we know from our Christian experience that to be a literalist is always to be a more selective reader of scripture than a non-literalist).

 

[Rodrigo_Bivar]

Please don’t speculate on what Jesus might have said about the Muslims. The question is very simple:

Did Jesus Christ tell Christians to oppress Muslims or any other people?

Yes or No.

Please note that I have included “any other people” to cover the fact that there were no Muslims in his day.

As for your understanding that:

As for your second question, the Qur’an can be interpreted both to command Muslims to oppress non-Muslims and to command them to extend some kind of toleration and even respect to Peoples of the Book.

So I take it that the answer is that Muhammad DID command the Muslims to oppress Christians.

Let us talk about your ‘some kind of toleration and even respect’ some other time. It is nonsense of course but I don’t want to divert the subject of this thread.

 

[AgnosTheist]

Jesus could not have told the Christians to oppress the Muslims, because there were no Muslims in existence yet. Duh.

What about the jews? Mohammad had plenty of negative things to say about them.

 

[Palladio]

The Christian realism is a virtue.
( though forgotten virtue )

Thanks for the trouble you’ve gone to, but I never said Catholicism or Christianity = pacificism, just that the passage about coming not in peace etc. did not speak to the issue, which you mistakenly implied it did.

Whether the passages you’ve generously collated and commented on amounts to something I, for one, could appreciate I am not sure. I would want to have the full koine Greek and a lot of learned, brilliant, experienced, and reverend heads to help me before I wanted to think of Christ as not being, first and last, Prince of Peace.

We face tribalism especially in Islamo-terrorism with weapons covert and otherwise that could destroy untold numbers of men, women, and children, and this must be opposed by the sword, but justly. But tribes as such cannot be beaten with swords.

Outside of what my RCC has given me–which is God!–I have found no convincing reason whatsoever to give the highest gift, my life, for my fellow man. What form that gift takes in a Catholic view is still up for debate, it seems.

However, the message of Christ is much louder and clearer on love and peace than on war, and we must build bridges in any way possible to our enemies, whom Christ enjoins us to love.