The Army and being a Catholic

[Harmony1988]

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

How exactly is it wrong? It’s clear that it’s a choice, you chose not to eliminate the threat and therefore the threat eliminated everyone else. You didn’t kill anyone directly, but the threat did, you are involved since it was your choice on how to deal with the threat, but since you didn’t do it, it’s indirect, and there was murder, → indirect murder.

Edit: I did not say it was co-operation, but I’m stating the deaths of everyone else is your responsibility to an extent. Like it’s been stated here and there many times before, those who have the power to do something, yet they don’t bear responsibility.

Aren’t there things as involuntary manslaughter and such?

 

[WatchfulPilgrim]

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

Are you a Jew?

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

Love your enemy does not mean blowing someone away in battle.

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”):

I don’t believe a Christian should take such positions in govenment. That is obvious given Christ’s teachings on non-resistance.

the standard for defending oneself differs from the standard for defending others, which likewise differs from the standard of governmental authorities defending their citizenry

here goes the twisting. I realize this is what the CC teaches, and it just contradicts everything Jesus teaches and exemplifies ALL THROUGHOUT the NT.

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?

Why does Jesus say His is a “little flock”? He explained in His parable about the sower and the seed why many people don’t understand/obey.

“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?

Luke 3:14And the soldiers likewise demanded of him, saying, And what shall we do? And he said unto them, Do violence to no man, neither accuse any falsely; and be content with your wages.(KJV) 14And the soldiers also asked him, saying: And what shall we do? And he said to them: Do violence to no man; neither calumniate any man; and be content with your pay.(Douay)

against wild animals and robbers

THere is no contradiction. I already answered this.

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.

I don’t put my faith in popularity. And there was disagreement among the ECFs, so this is incorrect. People submitted to official pronouncements made by a prominent church. That doesn’t mean everything that came out of the church was perfect.

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

I have faith that God would not lead a sincere seeker astray.

And you assume that Jesus preserved it through you alone.

I assume God preserved His Word. Period. I don’t care through whom He did so. God can use someone for something and that person can still go astray after.

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.

No. It is my God-given common sense. God does not clearly spell out non-resistance throughout the NT and then contradict it entirely through His church. I’d have to be a fool to submit to such a glaring error!

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.

You can try to rationlize your way out of this all you like, but the fact is that you can’t have it both ways. If your gf is getting an abortion against your will then she is about to murder your child. Are you going to protect that child or not?

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.

Yes, absent from papal teaching, but not from Scripture. You cannot reconcile Christ’s teachings and life with Christians going into battle. I see the “big picture” in Scripture, and Christian participation in battle does not exsist in it. And I’ve already quoted several Scripture to show the point.

The disease is the acts of terrorism

Irrelevant. You want to treat the disease by killing the people.

cont…

 

[WatchfulPilgrim]

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.

He is talking about people in authority over a Christian. He is not telling you to be the one in authority to have to execute God’s wrath.

don’t sit on the fence and decide to cherry pick what you want to believe and don’t want to believe.

I absolutely NEVER cherry pick. That is why, if you didn’t notice, I changed my signature. I have to reconsider my Catholicity. I have serious doubts about the church’s claims if this is really a doctrine I have to submit to. I will never submit to this.

I frankly don’t care for your opinions that seem to contradict you and everyone else around you.

you don’t know anyone around me and you don’t know me. If you don’t care for my opinions then put me on the “ignore” list. I’m only giving my last 2cents so I wouldn’t be accused of hit and run posting. I gave and objection and want to make sure I’ve explained it well.

so I suppose you imply the OT is redundant now

Already answered. Jesus raised the bar. There is no longer “an eye for an eye…”

If anything this sounds like the fair treatment of prisoners in a war

Really? If they don’t live to be a prisoner you don’t have the opportunity to treat them so fairly.

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.

The evidence is THROUGHOUT the NT. I suggest you read that and set your Catechism back on the shelf a while if you want to see the evidence.

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

Some of it’s points, as I’ve already cited, most certainly do support “my opinion”.

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

Right. I don’t agree with the entire article. I’m just showing you that you don’t agree with it all either, as some of it supports pacifism.

There is really nothing I can say that Scripture hasn’t already said. My objection is fully and clearly supported throughout the NT, so if you need more study, please consult That. If you still don’t agree with it, then argue with God, not me.

Peace~

 

[WatchfulPilgrim]

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)

No need to be sarcastic “golly gee”. And no, I don’t not lack comprehension skills. I read Scripture prayerfully, and try to reply in my posts prayerfully as well. I already explained this too. That was ONE of its POSSIBLE uses. It was used for other things also. Like I said, just b/c I CAN use my screwdriver as a weapon does not mean I should never carry a screwdriver.

Are you really reading my posts? You keep bringing up the same arguments over and over which I’ve already answered.

 

[Harmony1988]

Luke 3:14And the soldiers likewise demanded of him, saying, And what shall we do? And he said unto them, **Do violence to no man**, neither accuse any falsely; and be content with your wages.(KJV) 14And the soldiers also asked him, saying: And what shall we do? And he said to them: **Do violence to no man**; neither calumniate any man; and be content with your pay.(Douay)

Clearly there is an issue if you look at the translation like that, he tells them not to do violence, but be happy with their pay, since their job does entail violence, he is either saying cheat your employer and be happy with your pay by not doing the job when it’s required or there is some other meaning here:

net.bible.org/verse.php?book=luk&chapter=3&verse=14

Take a careful look at the parallel between the greek, kjv and other bible versions. It’s actually not to take money by force or extort he is referring to in terms of violence.

In fine print it says:

“3 tn Or “Rob no one.” The term διασείσητε (diaseishte) here refers to “shaking someone.” In this context it refers to taking financial advantage of someone through violence, so it refers essentially to robbery. Soldiers are to perform their tasks faithfully. A changed person is to carry out his tasks in life faithfully and without grumbling.”

 

[Harmony1988]

Are you a Jew? Love your enemy does not mean blowing someone away in battle. I don’t believe a Christian should take such positions in govenment. That is obvious given Christ’s teachings on non-resistance. here goes the twisting. I realize this is what the CC teaches, and it just contradicts everything Jesus teaches and exemplifies ALL THROUGHOUT the NT. Why does Jesus say His is a “little flock”? He explained in His parable about the sower and the seed why many people don’t understand/obey. Luke 3:14And the soldiers likewise demanded of him, saying, And what shall we do? And he said unto them, Do violence to no man, neither accuse any falsely; and be content with your wages.(KJV) 14And the soldiers also asked him, saying: And what shall we do? And he said to them: Do violence to no man; neither calumniate any man; and be content with your pay.(Douay)
THere is no contradiction. I already answered this. I don’t put my faith in popularity. And there was disagreement among the ECFs, so this is incorrect. People submitted to official pronouncements made by a prominent church. That doesn’t mean everything that came out of the church was perfect.I have faith that God would not lead a sincere seeker astray. I assume God preserved His Word. Period. I don’t care through whom He did so. God can use someone for something and that person can still go astray after. No. It is my God-given common sense. God does not clearly spell out non-resistance throughout the NT and then contradict it entirely through His church. I’d have to be a fool to submit to such a glaring error! You can try to rationlize your way out of this all you like, but the fact is that you can’t have it both ways. If your gf is getting an abortion against your will then she is about to murder your child. Are you going to protect that child or not? Yes, absent from papal teaching, but not from Scripture. You cannot reconcile Christ’s teachings and life with Christians going into battle. I see the “big picture” in Scripture, and Christian participation in battle does not exsist in it. And I’ve already quoted several Scripture to show the point. Irrelevant. You want to treat the disease by killing the people.

cont…

Thanks for mixing up my posts and everyone elses in one big slurpy, makes it so much easier to respond to.

 

[WatchfulPilgrim]

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.

Absolutely not. I’ve countered your every argument.

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.

I don’t carry a gun, and never would do so unless I was hunting, so, there is no chance I will “take him out”.

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.

He ticked a lot of people off with His teachings. Non-resistance seems to have ruffled a few feathers here for example. I know it’s a hard teaching, but in Christ we have a higher calling. Furthermore, you don’t know what came of those Roman soldiers. Did they put down their weapons? Did they follow Christ at some point?

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”

I already answered this.

 

[Harmony1988]

No need to be sarcastic “golly gee”. And no, I don’t not lack comprehension skills. I read Scripture prayerfully, and try to reply in my posts prayerfully as well. I already explained this too. That was ONE of its POSSIBLE uses. It was used for other things also. Like I said, just b/c I CAN use my screwdriver as a weapon does not mean I should never carry a screwdriver.

Are you really reading my posts? You keep bringing up the same arguments over and over which I’ve already answered.

Do you really believe the article was letting us know about the different possible uses of a dagger? IT wasn’t a dictionary definition of what was a dagger was by the way, it was implying what they ACTUALLY used those kinds of daggers for; wild animals & robbers

What’s next, will you demonstrate the lethal ability of an ice-cream cone?

 

[LJN21]

So what about the part where Jesus ran the Money Changers out of the temple with a WHIP. Where is the non-resistance and non-violence in that?

 

[Harmony1988]

I don’t carry a gun, and never would do so unless I was hunting, so, there is no chance I will “take him out”. He ticked a lot of people off with His teachings. Non-resistance seems to have ruffled a few feathers here for example. I know it’s a hard teaching, but in Christ we have a higher calling. Furthermore, you don’t know what came of those Roman soldiers. Did they put down their weapons? Did they follow Christ at some point? I already answered this.

thefreedictionary.com/hypothetical

Way to go for avoiding a hypothetical situation. It’s an if condition, do you know why? Because this stuff happens in real life. It doesn’t matter whether you own a gun or not, I don’t own one or carry one, it’s about what you would do if you were in that situation.

This is getting ridiculous. And no you haven’t really answered the Luke issue:

net.bible.org/verse.php?book=luk&chapter=3&verse=14

3 tn Or “Rob no one.” The term διασείσητε (diaseishte) here refers to “shaking someone.” In this context it refers to taking financial advantage of someone through violence, so it refers essentially to robbery. Soldiers are to perform their tasks faithfully. A changed person is to carry out his tasks in life faithfully and without grumbling.

As paralleled by many biblical texts including the KJV and the original greek.

 

[WatchfulPilgrim]

Clearly there is an issue if you look at the translation like that,

I don’t know what more to say. It’s there in black and white in two different translations - one of which is a VERY GOOD, Catholic interpretation I might add. You are ignoring the “writing on the wall” here. It is obvious how the church has perverted Scriptural doctrine - this is a PRIME example!

he tells them not to do violence, but be happy with their pay, since their job does entail violence, he is either saying cheat your employer and be happy with your pay by not doing the job when it’s required or there is some other meaning here:

net.bible.org/verse.php?book=luk&chapter=3&verse=14

Take a careful look at the parallel between the greek, kjv and other bible versions. It’s actually not to take money by force or extort he is referring to in terms of violence.

In fine print it says:

“3 tn Or “Rob no one.” The term διασείσητε (diaseishte) here refers to “shaking someone.” In this context it refers to taking financial advantage of someone through violence, so it refers essentially to robbery. Soldiers are to perform their tasks faithfully. A changed person is to carry out his tasks in life faithfully and without grumbling.”

The church seemed to have no problem, in one of its most widely-esteemed interpretations, to spell it out as I indicated. Furthermore, even in light of what you have “interpreted” in your “fine print”, does it make sense that they shouldn’t shake someone but they can kill someone? I don’t take the fine print in every interpretation as Scripture either. Many doctrines are perverted this way.

 

[WatchfulPilgrim]

Do you really believe the article was letting us know about the different possible uses of a dagger? IT wasn’t a dictionary definition of what was a dagger was by the way, it was implying what they ACTUALLY used those kinds of daggers for; **wild animals **& robbers

What’s next, will you demonstrate the lethal ability of an ice-cream cone?

I can’t continue this dialogue. You are completely unreasonable. You are the one having comprehension problems.

Please read your Bible and PRAY about it. Your arguments don’t make sense, and neither does this church doctrine.

God Bless~

 

[WatchfulPilgrim]

So what about the part where Jesus ran the Money Changers out of the temple with a WHIP. Where is the non-resistance and non-violence in that?

Did He strike someone?

 

[Harmony1988]

I don’t know what more to say. It’s there in black and white in two different translations - one of which is a VERY GOOD, Catholic interpretation I might add. You are ignoring the “writing on the wall” here. It is obvious how the church has perverted Scriptural doctrine - this is a PRIME example! The church seemed to have no problem, in one of its most widely-esteemed interpretations, to spell it out as I indicated. Furthermore, even in light of what you have “interpreted” in your “fine print”, does it make sense that they shouldn’t shake someone but they can kill someone? I don’t take the fine print in every interpretation as Scripture either. Many doctrines are perverted this way.

The church has perverted scriptural doctrine? And whose ‘doctrine’ are you referring to? Since the KJV came out in the 1500’s, you can’t possible be suggesting for 1500 years people were following the incorrect Bible can you? In that case forget it, you are so insistent on ignoring the greek, it’s not my fine print, it’s a neutral source. It’s not by the Catholic church if you didn’t notice.

Infact ALL the bible versions listed there are protestant. Including the KJV, and all it does is give a greek translation as well as what the words mean.

So your rant is void: 1) It’s not by the Catholic Church, 2) It’s merely a list of interpretations of different Bibles 3) It’s proved in Greek what kind of violence it’s referring to: violence in terms of robbery, extortion by force.

 

[Harmony1988]

Did He strike someone?

Nope, but it’s quite clearly when you go around and throwing people’s tables around it’s considered an act of violence, if you don’t believe me go into the police station and ask whether doing that would be considered an act of violence, to further prove this, go into any church and ask it.

Yes it’s an act of violence, striking someone or not. You maybe surprised to know, but violence takes on many different meanings.

 

[Harmony1988]

I can’t continue this dialogue. You are completely unreasonable. You are the one having comprehension problems.

Please read your Bible and PRAY about it. Your arguments don’t make sense, and neither does this church doctrine.

God Bless~

I haven’t yet quoted any Catholic sources, most of my stuff have actually been from protestant websites, much to your dismay I might add now. A fine thing to do, throw in the towel and tell the other person to pray about it, I might as well make the same suggestion to you.

Since you can’t continue the dialogue, you might as well be on your way

Take care

 

[Non_sum_dignus]

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.

The willingness to risk to face violence for the furtherance of a good cause is not unreasonable. The word for that is courage.

 

[WatchfulPilgrim]

Withdrawing from the discussion. It’s too disturbing that fellow Christians believe this garbage…

 

[LJN21]

Did He strike someone?

What would be the point of using a whip otherwise, an empty threat? He could have just walked in there and said get out, instead he walked in armed and knocked over their tables and ran them out… what do you think the odds of no one being hit are?

 

[Harmony1988]

Withdrawing from the discussion. It’s too disturbing that fellow Christians believe this garbage…

In other words:

“I give up”

Cya