ARGH!!! I spent a good amount of time trying to post a response here and lost the entire thing b/c I somehow got logged out before I submitted it and then when I logged in it was gone.
:banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead:Been there, done that. There’s little more frustrating than when that happensARGH!!! I spent a good amount of time trying to post a response here and lost the entire thing b/c I somehow got logged out before I submitted it and then when I logged in it was gone.
Tell me about it. It’s just going to take me that much longer to reply b/c I’m pretty much out of time for the day. People around here are getting annoyed with me being on this thing so muchBeen there, done that. There’s little more frustrating than when that happens
Jeremy
Thanks - I actually read that first thing after we began the conversation b/c I thought it was still “theory” and was pretty upset to find it was “doctrine”.
Thats sick if ur going into it for thrills
I can’t say for sure what the Catholic Church’s opinion on pacifism from war is. But what the Church teaches, and what I’ve believed (since years before my becoming Catholic) is that a man has a moral responsibility to defend certain people against aggressors, and so my argument with you has been largely on that front: I’m trying to convince you that you should defend your family against aggressors, because I think you’d be sinning if (God forbid) the need arose and you refused to.
I don’t think it’s ok for you not to defend your family against violent aggressors, that’s why I’m arguing
If this truly were a matter of opinion, I’d have defended my own and moved on, even if you disagreed.I think you’re misunderstanding Catholic teaching on this matter:Don’t you see this as a contradiction? How can both be right? If I am correct, then your p.o.v. has to be wrong. If you are, then my p.o.v. must be wrong. If they are both right, then it doesn’t even make sense to argue - but from my p.o.v., both can’t be, so it is worth discussing. Make sense?
That’s something that probably should have been brought up much earlier: that the it is because of the Law of Double Effect that the Church permits violent self-defense, and even then only insofar as it is necessary to preserve one’s life or the lives of others.
DO you have something constructive and less juvenile to add?
That might have overreached. Christians in positions responsible for the public good and the safety of others must be willing to wage war when it’s just; Christians who refuse to take up such positions may not be so obligated.
I thought you were trying to make a different point – that if God can kill Onan who He loved, that we can kill others too.
On the basis that God is infinitely more knowledgeable than any human being. If he will take a life it is b/c He knows the eternal consequences. We are not capable of such knowledge.
There is not enough information given. We can argue about what Jesus did exactly with the “whip” he constructed, but its only speculation. For all we know he may only used it to move out the animals.
I have read more than a few stories of people who were abducted, and tortured and won their abductor over through kindness and compassion.
Not sure what this referred to.
Not sure exactly what you mean by this? Stumble=suffering? = losing faith? They certainly would suffer. Depending on their age, they may lose faith. Things will change with time as the child matures. I’ve a friend who grew up in a satanic cult. And her assailants are members of her own family whom she has had to forgive - by the grace of God all things are possible. She is a living saint today; compassionate, gentle and forgiving. Just as with all suffering – it can make one bitter, or it can be a grace. St Therese said everything is a grace (not just the good things).
No. I doubt my children would understand despite our teaching and they still would not understand even if I managed to kill the criminal. It would take growth and years to mature to fully understand, and hopefully, in their maturity and with the grace of God they would understand that we would do all we could to protect them so long as it did not necessitate the taking of another life.
I would assume for nearly all children it would. All suffering does. Children lack the mental capacity to understand what is best. Just like we lack the capacity to understand what is best for us in God’s plan, and His plan includes suffering.
Most likely yes unless you have an exceptional child.
He would be better off converted - like Saul/Paul:thumbsup:.
Yes, but according to God’s will, not our ideas of what is best.
Yes, but not at the hands of a Christian. I may protect them as best I can but I may not kill him. It would certainly be in my nature to , perhaps, knock him out or something, but that would not be the most perfect response. Better response would be to try to reason with, shield the helpless, pray…
?
Agreed.
The law does not even allow this. Does it where you live? A law-enforcement official may, yes, but I may not. I can’t even threaten someone with a TOY gun here! I would try to intervene every way possible without hurting him or killing him.
No, my only point in the Onan example is that it’s at least logically possible to love someone and harm or even kill him at the same time.
True, but we are called to do the best with what we have.
Even the threat of violence is in itself violence, however. That’s how the law sees it, at least here: threatening to hurt someone will send you up the river for assault, even if you never actually harm anyone.
I doubt they were children, though.
When I said “Christ did it” I meant that Christ was tortured and did not stumble.
Often for the worse, though, once they realize that their God-given protector refused to do his duty to protect them.
I would hope so as well. Can you describe in further detail what you mean by “all we could to protect them”? If some violence is justifiable in such situations, then you have a harder to case to prove, Scripturally: you need to show how some violence can be justified but not lethal violence.
Good: one premise accepted.
Ok, I think that’s a “yes” as well.
Of course, but Christ explicitly said, “whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened around his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea.” So even if it would be even better for him to be converted, he would still be better of dead than causing a child to stumble.
Again, though, God in Christ explicitly stated that death is better than causing a child to stumble. Based on that revelation, if we are given the choice between death and causing a child to stumble, death is in our best interest, is it not?
I don’t see how you can claim this while accepting the previous three premises and the earlier conclusion. Love means doing the best we can for a person. Christ explicitly said that causing a child to stumble is worse than death itself. So killing someone who is intent on causing a child to stumble would be doing the best we can for someone, at least in certain other circumstances when all other means of prevention fail.
You said, “Jesus did not defend, not only Himself, but anyone else either,” but that overreaches: we see no example in Scripture where Christ didn’t come to the defense of the weak.
I think it’s important that we bear in mind that anyone here arguing in defense of the Catholic Church’s teaching on this matter (myself included) is not saying violence is good, but that it’s a permissible evil in accordance with the law of double effect.
Maybe not where you live, but it certainly does where I live.
In the majority (if not all) the United States, a man is entitled to any and all force he deems necessary to defend his household against an intruder. Most state laws justify the use of equivalent force when a man is attacked on neutral ground: he can’t bring a gun to a knife fight, but if threatened with a gun, he can use his own to neutralize the threat. Many states even have concealed carry laws allowing law abiding citizens to carry concealed weapons on their person.
Certainly you can imagine some situations in which it is impossible to deter an assailant without causing him physical harm, though.
And it seems that you are using the millstone passage to support this argument. I can see why you see it this way, but I don’t think the conclusion is correct. First of all, you’re right that Jesus defended the weak and defenseless, but not physically - unless you mean he defended them from illnes through miracles etc… He did not take up arms to defend anyone. The millstone example you give I take differently. I believe the CC may have used your example to justify the inquisition in fact - a text taken out of context. What Jesus is saying here is that being drowned would be less suffering than what he would endur in Hell. But He is not saying that being drowned would redeem him. I can see that might be the conclusion one draws from that passage, but I don’t think it is what was meant. Jesus always draws our focus away from the material/carnal things to the eternal/spiritual realities.
I’ll take a look at this sometime today.
Yes, I think you’ve better explained your position, and I can see why you believe as you do, however, I don’t think the conclusions you drew from these Scriptures is a correct one. It’s a convincing argument, like many Catholic arguments I admit, however, whether or not they are true is another matter. The Catholic interpretation is a literalist one where I don’t believe it ought to be, and that is often where the differences lie between Catholic interpretations and non-C ones. When I read those passages I do not see your interpretations as fitting with the character or example of Christ who never, as far as recorded in the NT, hurt anyone at all, and certainly never killed anyone - not in their defense, or even in His own defense when threatened with murder, and we know He had every means to escape w/out even inflicting harm. And we are called to no less. We must be willing to give our lives in a sacrificial way if necessary, but,like Christ, not to cause harm to another.
But you’re arguing from “we have no evidence that He did this” to “he would never in fact do this.” That’s a hard argument to make: Jesus didn’t have a wife and children who depended on Him for sustenance and protection.
Of course being drowned wouldn’t redeem him. But the clear point of the passage is that it is better to die than to cause little children to stumble, is it not?
Not always. “Cast your nets on the other side of the boat” was very much a focus on material/carnal things, was it not?
It’s key to understanding this issue (and a number of others), and it’s fairly well established as the only justifying principle for doing things that have evil effects under a deontological ethical system such as that of Christianity.
While the Catholic position is more clearly expounded than most Protestant ones, what I’m saying is also the primary interpretation of Protestants, as well.
But surely you recognize that an argument from the lack of something in Scripture is one of the weakest you can propose in defense of a doctrinal claim, right?
That fact weakens your argument, it doesn’t strengthen it. I’m specifically talking about situations in which escape is impossible without inflicting harm.
I would argue, though, that we’re doing less harm to our aggressor than the aggressor would be doing to himself if he’s successful. That’s love
As it is the heart of most disagreements between Catholics and Protestants, and between Protestants themselves.
But that’s not true, as I’ve noted earlier. I ran into this issue years before becoming Catholic, and resolved it in this manner years before I’d even considered entering the Church.
My openness to spiritual discernment of the Scripture is what led me to this position; it only so happens that the Catholic Church agrees with the position I’d already taken.
Well, as I’ve noted before, that position requires you either to question my authenticity in seeking the truth in this matter, or to admit that even authentic seekers of truth can be misled, even when operating from the same premises, as you are now and I was then.
They certainly do, but it’s not surprising that regardless what you actually believe, there’s some group out there which believes the same thing. Paul prophesied this long ago in his letter to Timothy, “For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions.”
No, I am a Catholic dummy, I know nothing, I am sure tho that U have the answers to it all
No worries, ponder awayHey Jeremy~
Didn’t want you to think I forgot about you. I was composing a response to you and it brought up some new points to ponder - not really even things you brought up, but related. So my wheels are spinning at the moment. Bear with me
Thanks~
Then what do you say we just refrain from calling people sick for asking an honest question and being honest about their feelings. This is not myspace.
DID U READ HIS POST, HE IS ACTUALLY WORRIED ABOUT HIMSELF FOR FEELING THE WAY HE DOES, GOING IN JUST FOR THE THRILL OF IT, HE SAYS HE HAS NO PROBLEM KILLING SOMEONE IF HE HAS TO, WELL MAYBE THE DAY WILL COME WHEN I MAY HAVE TO KILL SOMEONE FOR THYE SAKE OF MY FAMILIES SAFETY BUT BELIEVE ME i WOULDNT BE THRILLED TO DO IT. …THOU SHALT NOT KILL. & I WASNT TALKING TO YOU, WHO ARE U ANYWAY TO MAKE SOMEONE FEEL LIKE A JERK. WHERE IS UR CATHOLIC CHRISTIANITY. i am tired of all u know it all catholics
We might ask you the same question, since you’re the one who came in here in judgment. Someone just called you out on it, and you’re all in a tizzy.