The Army and being a Catholic

[LJN21]

Source: catholic.com/library/Just_War_Doctrine_1.asp

:tsktsk:

But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.

Love your enemy. Resist not evil. Whatever to do to the least…you do unto Me.
Jesus says it over and over and even gives His own life and death as an example, as do those who followed Him. Seriously, I have to THROW OUT my Bible if I am to submit my conscience to the CC about this.

Provers 25:26 A righteous man falling down before the wicked is as a troubled fountain, and a corrupt spring.

Explain to me how these means we should just let someone walk in and kill our whole family?

Luke 22:36 Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.

I guess that swords just for decoration?

Exodus 22:2 If a thief be found breaking up, and be smitten that he die, there shall no blood be shed for him.

What about this one?

Matt 26:52 Then said Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword.

Why didn’t Jesus tell Peter to distory is sword and just not put it away? He told him to put it in its place … to sheath it… keep it at hand… because it wasn’t the right time to fight.

 

[LJN21]

Neither are today’s Catholics. A 16th century sect that more closely resembles the Apostolic faith as recorded in the most authentic Christian teachings ever recorded - the Scriptures. I am to believe that a church that teaches and practices anti-Christ doctrine like this one is the “OTC”? No can do.

Um… What about what the first Chirstians in the 300-600’s taught? Had they already lost there faith. Did it take another 1300 for some other sect to fight the right path agian?

Totally reconsidering my return to the CC… God did not leave us His Word that clearly says ABC but we can’t trust what we read as really being ABC b/c the CC says it really says XYZ… The CC wants me to believe that EVERYTHING I can deduce, through Scripture, about Christ and His teachings and life/death anda the church is not to be believed b/c I am not infallible. It wants me to look at a rose and call it a snake b/c it says it is. I’m sorry, but I won’t do that. And what a clever deception to have me believe that I can’t trust Scripture b/c it gave Scripture to the world. If you can believe God used the sole, supposed authority of the CC to preserve and compile it then you take that on faith. I’ll take it on faith that God preserved the Scriptures and how and at the hands of whom is of no consequence to me. He could use my 4 year old daughter to do so if He wishes.

It is an insult to humanity to say that God would give His Inspired Word to the world but that humanity can not draw truth from it w/out the aid of the CC. It’s an insult to God. His Word is available for all to read. If it is His will that it be available to be read by all, then it CAN NOT be so complicated to understand that a clear Bible teaching like that of Christian pacifism is wrong. To me, that is just as impossible to believe as if the CC insisted I believe that Scripture teaches Jesus is Satan. It is that impossible.

Excuses. The CC never fails to find a way to excuse itself for its contradictions to Scripture. And it’s very clever; very deceptive.

I think I made a grave error in returning to the Church w/out addressing the contradictory doctrines. I just shoved my convictions away b/c I believe the supposed authority.

Okay what language do you read scripture in? Greek? Exactly what type of Love do they mean when it says “love they neighbor”?

Your pride in your own interpretation is going to be your downfall. Take a second and try and educate your self on why the Church teaches what it does instead of basing your belief on your translations on what something means based on someone else translation of something in to Latin that was translated form someone else’s translation of Greek or hebrew… You have to educate yourself to find out what the meaning of the words, not what you think the meaning is.

 

[WatchfulPilgrim]

Provers 25:26 A righteous man falling down before the wicked is as a troubled fountain, and a corrupt spring.

This doesn’t say one should kill the wicked, but even if it did, I will respond likewise to this:

Exodus 22:2 If a thief be found breaking up, and be smitten that he die, there shall no blood be shed for him.

Why stop there? How about this one?:
“an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth”
I’ll let Jesus answer it for you:

"You have heard that it was said, ‘AN EYE FOR AN EYE, AND A TOOTH FOR A TOOTH.’ But I say to you, do not resist an evil person; but whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also… You have heard that it was said, ‘YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR and hate your enemy.’ But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, (Matthew 5:38-39, 43-44)

Luke 22:36 Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.

I guess that swords just for decoration?

I’ll answer using the link Harmony gave in post 16:

The swords in question, at any rate, were not the longswords of our medieval television programs. This would most likely have been a Jewish short sword - a dagger used as protection against wild animals and robbers, considered so essential that even the “peace-loving Essenes” carried it, and it was permitted to be carried on the Sabbath as part of one’s adornment! [See Hengel, Was Jesus a Revolutionist?, 21] Needless to say, this weapon would not be much use against the Temple police - much less against any number of armed Roman soldiers! “”…some even think that Jesus equipped his followers with swords in anticipation of trouble, and note that Peter scuffled with the Temple police to aid in resisting Jesus’ arrest. What an overstated case! The passage in Luke refers to only TWO swords - and during the so-called “scuffle,” there was nothing but Peter slicing off a servant’s ear, followed by Jesus instructing Peter to put his sword away!"

 

[LJN21]

"You have heard that it was said, ‘AN EYE FOR AN EYE, AND A TOOTH FOR A TOOTH.’ But I say to you, do not resist an evil person; but whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also…

I don’t’ see anything where this says you should just let him KILL you. If your going to be literal you need to be literal. This says if he SLAPS you.

[You have heard that it was said, ‘YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR and hate your enemy.’ But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, (Matthew 5:38-39, 43-44)

You don’t have to be hate you enemy to not let him do harm to you and your family. In fact how is it loving at all to allow him to commit murder!

I’ll answer using the link Harmony gave in post 16:

The swords in question, at any rate, were not the longswords of our medieval television programs. This would most likely have been a Jewish short sword - a dagger used as protection against wild animals and robbers, considered so essential that even the “peace-loving Essenes” carried it, and it was permitted to be carried on the Sabbath as part of one’s adornment! [See Hengel, Was Jesus a Revolutionist?, 21] Needless to say, this weapon would not be much use against the Temple police - much less against any number of armed Roman soldiers! “”…some even think that Jesus equipped his followers with swords in anticipation of trouble, and note that Peter scuffled with the Temple police to aid in resisting Jesus’ arrest. What an overstated case! The passage in Luke refers to only TWO swords - and during the so-called “scuffle,” there was nothing but Peter slicing off a servant’s ear, followed by Jesus instructing Peter to put his sword away!"

Again Jesus told peter to PUT IT AWAY. Not get rid of it.
[/quote]

 

[WatchfulPilgrim]

Um… What about what the first Chirstians in the 300-600’s taught? Had they already lost there faith. Did it take another 1300 for some other sect to fight the right path agian?

You are not presenting any thought to me that I have not already studied and prayed over, extensively. Look at my history on here and you will see that. If you want my views on that, please check my history (as WatchfulPilgrim or JoyToBeCatholic) before December 2008.

Okay what language do you read scripture in? Greek? Exactly what type of Love do they mean when it says “love they neighbor”?

The kind Jesus gave an example of.

Your pride in your own interpretation is going to be your downfall. Take a second and try and educate your self on why the Church teaches what it does instead of basing your belief on your translations on what something means based on someone else translation of something in to Latin that was translated form someone else’s translation of Greek or hebrew…

You mean I should, instead, trust that the faith has been supposedly preserved via passing on teachings from one sinful person to the next, generation after generation, through “succession” and never was personal opinion inserted and asserted as original? Takes blind faith to do so. You assume this is how Jesus preserved the truth. Contradiction in doctrine proves otherwise. Even Catholicism agrees that the Scriptures have been preserved in such a way that their original meaning has not been lost.

Regardless, how God preserved the church/truth is not the topic of this thread. But ultimately, the discussion does need to migrate to the issue of authority, b/c such a contradictory teaching as this one necessitates the consideration that the CC does not have any authority.

 

[WatchfulPilgrim]

I don’t’ see anything where this says you should just let him KILL you. If your going to be literal you need to be literal. This says if he SLAPS you.

You don’t have to be hate you enemy to not let him do harm to you and your family. In fact how is it loving at all to allow him to commit murder!

How will you save his soul if you kill him in his murderous rampage?

Again Jesus told peter to PUT IT AWAY. Not get rid of it.

The article explains why it was not necessary to put it away. It wasn’t a weapon like you imagine it to be. It was likely a tool, although used perhaps by some at times as a weapon against animals or to mame someone like a theif (not kill). I can hurt someone with a screwdriver too but should I not be allowed to carry it b/c of that?

 

[jemfinch]

I think that’s a wide sweeping generalization there, there are plenty of soldiers that do look forward to deployments, especially within the special forces.

And I’m telling that they’re unreasonable. Reasonable people don’t look forward to risking life and limb and the possibility of having to kill others.

Jeremy

 

[WatchfulPilgrim]

I can’t continue on this forum all afternoon. I need time to cool off anyway.

Peace~

 

[jemfinch]

Mothers and Fathers encouraged their youth not to resist either but to be strong in faith, choosing to love and forgive their persecutors over hatred and a desire for revenge.

That’s just rhetoric, irrelevant to the point at hand. Defending oneself from an aggressor is not “hatred” or “a desire for revenge.”

None of my Mennonite friends will defend their families even at the hands of one aggressor.

May God have mercy on their souls for their sin, then.

I myself refuse to let go of this conviction as I see no reasonable argument to justify it. It is not a teaching of Christ.

The presumption of defense against aggressors was enshrined in Jewish Law:

"If there is a betrothed virgin, and a man meets her in the city and lies with her, then you shall bring them both out to the gate of that city, and you shall stone them to death with stones, the young woman because she did not cry for help though she was in the city, and the man because he violated his neighbor’s wife. So you shall purge the evil from your midst.

But if in the open country a man meets a young woman who is betrothed, and the man seizes her and lies with her, then only the man who lay with her shall die. But you shall do nothing to the young woman; she has committed no offense punishable by death. For this case is like that of a man attacking and murdering his neighbor, because he met her in the open country, and though the betrothed young woman cried for help there was no one to rescue her."

If a woman cries for help in a city, Jewish law presumes that any able-bodied person would come to assist her and save her from her aggressor. This presumption has such great force that woman are put to death for refusing to cry for help. So without any indication to the contrary, we can and should assume that Christ would likewise presume that His followers would defend others against aggressors.

Even more, we even have an affirmation of this principle of defense against aggressors in Christ’s words: “But no one can enter a strong man’s house and plunder his goods, unless he first binds the strong man.” If Christ supported the defense of one’s possessions against an aggressor, then a fortiori He would support the defense of one’s family against an aggressor. Christ did not condemn the strong man for defending his household, but actually used the example as a reasonable basis for further teaching.

As a secondary, slightly more lighthearted argument, anything I do to someone who invades my home intending to harm my family would likely pale in comparison to having “a great millstone fastened around his neck and [being] drowned in the depth of the sea.” Undoubtedly, as the earthly example of fatherhood to my children, from which they would derive many principles of God’s fatherhood to them, it would cause those little ones to stumble immensely for me to stand by and refuse to exercise my power to defend them.

There’s no evidence that Christ’s “turn the other cheek” doctrine was ever intended to reject defense of others.

Jeremy

 

[jemfinch]

Source: catholic.com/library/Just_War_Doctrine_1.asp

:tsktsk:

Just War doctrine is fully in comport with Romans 13, which establishes a very different standard for governmental authorities than Christ’s standard for individuals (“Turn the other cheek”):

"Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, for he is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God’s wrath on the wrongdoer.

Love your enemy. Resist not evil. Whatever to do to the least…you do unto Me.
Jesus says it over and over and even gives His own life and death as an example, as do those who followed Him. Seriously, I have to THROW OUT my Bible if I am to submit my conscience to the CC about this.

No, you just have to understand that the standard for defending oneself differs from the standard for defending others, which likewise differs from the standard of governmental authorities defending their citizenry. Your interpretation of the Bible is overly simplistic in this regard.

Jeremy

 

[jemfinch]

Totally reconsidering my return to the CC… God did not leave us His Word that clearly says ABC but we can’t trust what we read as really being ABC b/c the CC says it really says XYZ…

In this particular case, the Catholic Church is simply telling you what you don’t want to hear for some reason: that Christ’s commandment to “resist not evil” and “turn the other cheek” applies only to individuals defending themselves and that different standards exist for individuals defending others and for governmental authorities defending others.

The CC wants me to believe that EVERYTHING I can deduce, through Scripture, about Christ and His teachings and life/death anda the church is not to be believed b/c I am not infallible.

No, it wants you to recognize that you can be wrong.

It is an insult to humanity to say that God would give His Inspired Word to the world but that humanity can not draw truth from it w/out the aid of the CC.

It is not an insult to humanity, but a recognition of the simple fact that humanity is fallen and capable of almost infinite rationalization.

It’s an insult to God. His Word is available for all to read. If it is His will that it be available to be read by all, then it CAN NOT be so complicated to understand that a clear Bible teaching like that of Christian pacifism is wrong.

Odd, then, that the vast majority of Christians, Catholic and non-Catholic, have never understood “Christian pacifism” to be the proper interpretation of Christ’s words. If God’s written word is so simple to understand, why have only a vanishingly small number of people throughout history actually succeeded in understanding it?

The simple fact is that Christ’s commandment to “Turn the other cheek” does not apply to all cases of defense.

Surely you recognize at least some moral authority in the teaching of John the Baptist. “Soldiers also asked him, ‘And we, what shall we do?’ And he said to them, ‘Do not extort money from anyone by threats or by false accusation, and be content with your wages.’” The greatest prophet of Judaism did not tell the soldiers to lay down their swords and quite their jobs. You seem to be claiming that he should have. Why didn’t he?

Christ even told His disciples to go to great lengths to acquire a sword; “And let the one who has no sword sell his cloak and buy one.” Why would He advise this, if not for defense of oneself and others? Certainly He didn’t advise this merely for the deterrent effect, if He considered his own teaching to utterly disqualify the use of a sword: that would be duplicitous.

I think I made a grave error in returning to the Church w/out addressing the contradictory doctrines. I just shoved my convictions away b/c I believe the supposed authority.

Yes, you did make a grave error. All is not lost, however: you simply have to recognize your own fallibility, and that the Church can provide quite compelling arguments for the biblical interpretation it proposes. Certainly more compelling than any I’ve seen “Christian pacifists” submit.

Jeremy

 

[jemfinch]

I’ll answer using the link Harmony gave in post 16:

The swords in question, at any rate, were not the longswords of our medieval television programs. This would most likely have been a Jewish short sword - a dagger used as protection against wild animals and robbers

The bolded portion contradicts your case.

Jeremy

 

[jemfinch]

You mean I should, instead, trust that the faith has been supposedly preserved via passing on teachings from one sinful person to the next, generation after generation, through “succession” and never was personal opinion inserted and asserted as original? Takes blind faith to do so.

It takes more blind faith to believe that you individually haven’t asserted your personal opinion as God’s original meaning, than it does to believe that the vast majority of Christian leaders throughout history, all over the world, have simultaneously inserted their somehow singular (and fully in agreement) personal opinion as God’s original meaning.

You assume this is how Jesus preserved the truth.

And you assume that Jesus preserved it through you alone. Which requires more faith?

Contradiction in doctrine proves otherwise.

Contradiction in doctrine cannot prove otherwise, because you have no bedrock doctrine that you’ve established as true by which to judge the Church. You may believe a certain doctrine to be true, but you must claim personal infallibility, at least with respect to that doctrine, in order to use it to contradict the teachings of any other person or Church.

Jeremy

 

[Harmony1988]

Do you fight the war against abortion carnally too? If not, why not? What is more heinous?

Instigating reprisals on abortion carnally is problematic as that brings about civil war, that could be the first problem, whereas the war in the middle-east is not civil war. The goal is not desirable to kill half the population who support abortion rights. We can start off with that.

The terrorist threat from the middle-east, or the genocide of innocent babies in your own homeland? I do believe God has a purpose for war. I am not totally against war. It is obvious to me that Christ does not justify the Christian’s involvement in battle.

Contradiction much? So now you are not totally against war, but it’s obvious to you that Christian’s should not be involved in battles? I suppose Christ created different laws now?
These statements are redundant since they are highly opinionated and lack evidence from scripture or papal teaching.

You sound like the “pro-choicers” who call babies leaches. Since when is another human being a “disease”?

Show me the statement where I said “another human being is a disease” - I suggest strong reading glasses. The disease is the acts of terrorism. Note the bolded bit so that you don’t take things further out of context.

I am beginning to think that Catholics can wiggle their way out of any scripture whatsoever based on their “sacred tradition” argument. This discussion has me once again sitting on the fence. This is hardly a matter of scripture interpretation. Christ VERY CLEARLY taught non-resistance. Show me one instance in the NT where He, or anyone else, exemplifies murder or condones it in any way.

Sure: Luke 14:31 - Or what king, going to make war against another king, does not sit down first and consider whether he is able with ten thousand to meet him who comes against him with twenty thousand?

What is Jesus saying here? He is talking about negotiation before a war, which is what I said earlier, but terrorist groups aren’t open to this.

Here’s a bit more:

Romans 13:3-4

3 For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, 4 for he is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God’s wrath on the wrongdoer.

The CC canonizes non-resistanct saints like Francis of Assisi and then turns around and justifies murder. The CC defends “pro-life” and then turns around and justifies murder. There are no excuses. The CC is full of excuses. No dear. Look, you asked the question. I know you didn’t ask it b/c you already had the answers.

I asked questions for certain issues, certainly not to the extent you are claiming things. I never came here to ask whether war was ok, I was referring specifically to a certain attitude I had. I suggest stronger reading glasses at this point, as well as brushing up english comprehension skills. You can make a choice here, either you stick with CC or not, don’t sit on the fence and decide to cherry pick what you want to believe and don’t want to believe. I frankly don’t care for your opinions that seem to contradict you and everyone else around you.

You quoted: Again, you quote the OT. Do you still observe the Saturday Sabbath too?

Yes, so I suppose you imply the OT is redundant now? The books of the OT is just there for the odd reading pleasure once in a while? We don’t observe the Sabbath since it’s to deal with traditions, war is not based on traditions. Just like we are allowed to tattoo now and eat different kinds of meats that weren’t allowed then.

Yes, there is a time for war. Yes, God permits people to participate in it. The questio is: Does He permit YOU, a Christian, to participate in it? Here’s an OT passage to meditate on: Proverbs 25:21 “if thine enemy be hungry, give him bread to eat; and if he be thirsty, give him water to drink” 22 For thou whalt heap coals of fire upon his head, and the Lord shall reward thee.

What’s the point of this? If anything this sounds like the fair treatment of prisoners in a war, I do not see your point here. God did not create different rules for different sets of people, especially in the NT.

I have not responded to every little thing since most of it involves me supposedly going against my conscience or your opinion without any kind of evidence.

 

[Harmony1988]

Please show me where in the NT Jesus says you can pull the trigger on your enemy. I’m not telling you what I think. I’m telling you what Jesus taught and exemplified as written in Scripture which everyone seems to be ignoring, as well as giving you a Catholic example (Francis) of someone (among many Catholics) who are pacifists.

And again and again: I said God has a purpose for war, but CLEARLY Christians may not pull the trigger.

One of many spread througout the New Testament: Romans 13-3

3 For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, 4 for he is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God’s wrath on the wrongdoer.

 

[Harmony1988]

Thanks for those links. Btw, I think you need to re-read that first one. I believe it supports my position.

On the contrary, the very first paragraph itself starts setting the tone for a contradiction to your position:

Matt. 26:52 “Put your sword back in its place,” Jesus said to him, “for all who draw the sword will die by the sword.”
Some would say that this seems to be a strong indictment against war, and place it against certain verses where Jesus seems to advocate fighting. We’ll look at those in a moment, but it should first be noted that this verse is in the form of proverbial wisdom, and is therefore not an advocation of pacifism – nor, by reason of its proverbial nature, is it absolute, as is obvious since not every single person who has drawn a sword (or other weapon) has died by the same means.

An advocation of pacifism is exactly what you’re doing.

 

[Harmony1988]

Source: catholic.com/library/Just_War_Doctrine_1.asp

:tsktsk:

But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.

Love your enemy. Resist not evil. Whatever to do to the least…you do unto Me.
Jesus says it over and over and even gives His own life and death as an example, as do those who followed Him. Seriously, I have to THROW OUT my Bible if I am to submit my conscience to the CC about this.

Lol I knew you’d eventually throw this up. However taking a look at Romans 13:3 as I put up before

3 For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, 4 for he is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God’s wrath on the wrongdoer.

Would either suggest the NT is in contradiction, or that you misinterpreted something. The latter (you getting it wrong) is the greater possibility.

Jesus is referring to not acting in revenge. Acting in revenge is different from protecting people due to evil. Sometimes the boundary maybe a bit blurry, (especially in your case) since you have difficulty making the distinction between protection, unprovoked violence, sense of duty and revenge.

 

[Harmony1988]

I’ll answer using the link Harmony gave in post 16:

The swords in question, at any rate, were not the longswords of our medieval television programs. This would most likely have been a Jewish short sword - a dagger used as protection against wild animals and robbers, considered so essential that even the “peace-loving Essenes” carried it, and it was permitted to be carried on the Sabbath as part of one’s adornment! [See Hengel, Was Jesus a Revolutionist?, 21] Needless to say, this weapon would not be much use against the Temple police - much less against any number of armed Roman soldiers! “”…some even think that Jesus equipped his followers with swords in anticipation of trouble, and note that Peter scuffled with the Temple police to aid in resisting Jesus’ arrest. What an overstated case! The passage in Luke refers to only TWO swords - and during the so-called “scuffle,” there was nothing but Peter slicing off a servant’s ear, followed by Jesus instructing Peter to put his sword away!"

Um, that has nothing to do with anything against war, but rather referring to the definition and the use of the swords.

Incase you failed to read it the first time, I bolded it for you. Hang on…isn’t that self defence? Oh golly gee, whatever could the passage be on about now? The answer to that can be found by reading from the top again. This passage is noway indicative of an argument against war. Rather the use of it as shown in the Bible for a passage, the issue here seems to be a question of what kind of swords they are using, not whether it’s ok to use it.

Jesus instructed Peter to put away his sword because the time for Jesus had come as Jesus had told them repeatedly. (Comprehension skills are a-calling)

 

[Harmony1988]

Finally, I’ll put this in terms of common sense, I’m not going to argue any further with you since I have given you plenty of quotes from the NT itself that supports war and protection for that matter, so bringing “contrary” bits of scripture is redundant unless you wish to imply that the Bible is wrong and contradicting. So your only position is to redefine your understanding of the scriptures.

Common sense scenario 1:

Terrorist running towards you with a suicide bomb at 200 m away, there are 10 people around you and you are cornered.

Option 1: Use your gun and take him out
Option 2: Tell everyone to pray since ‘killing’ is wrong and hope for the best.

Taking option 2 you are indirectly an accomplice to murder, because life is meant to be protected, obviously the death of 10 people is a greater tragedy than the death of 1, especially when the death of that 1 person was the death of an aggressor who initiated the act of violence. So not protecting yourself and the others would be seen as failure to take responsibility when you had the choice to protect them.

Jesus Christ doesn’t give examples for every little scenario and at this time there was limited weaponry for taking out millions of people in a single shot (think nuclear), his positions on violence dealt largely with what the common people dealt with in everyday life as we do, how do we deal with our neighbour, do we take revenge, he also reiterated many OT positions on the sanctity of life and not murdering. He however never uttered anything against the Roman military, and he did utter plenty of things to **** people off, so it’s clear he spoke against things when he had to, infact he answered the prayers of some Roman soldiers.

John the Baptist’s discussion with soldiers in Luke 3 (”Then some soldiers asked him [John], “And what should we do?” He replied, “Don’t extort money and don’t accuse people falsely—be content with your pay.”) He didn’t say ‘give up the army’, but he says be content with your pay!! Would he say that to say a hired hitman? “Be content with your pay”

This is logic at its simplest.

A right to life logically calls for a right to defend, especially if threatened in an unprovoked manner.

 

[jemfinch]

Terrorist running towards you with a suicide bomb at 200 m away, there are 10 people around you and you are cornered.

Option 1: Use your gun and take him out
Option 2: Tell everyone to pray since ‘killing’ is wrong and hope for the best.

Taking option 2 you are indirectly an accomplice to murder

While I don’t disagree with your conclusion (obviously), this line of reasoning is wrong: not killing a person does not constitute cooperation (remote, material, or otherwise) with their sins.

Jeremy