The Army and being a Catholic

[Harmony1988]

The more I think on this, the more I realize how I’ve come accross on here.

I have expressed a lot of anger on here, for which I’m sorry. I am not angry at any of you. I am angry with myself for having returned to the CC and abandoned all of my convictions on one little (and most likely erroneous) fact (the canonization of Scripture through - possibly - the CC). And I realize that my having done a 360 right here in this thread has thrown people off and caused a lot of confusion…

There is not all that much ‘anger’ here, if there is any kind of anger it would be solely that you would not defend your family from attack, that’s pretty much all, no one is angry that you have a different point of view.

 

[Harmony1988]

SCRIPTURAL UNDERSTANDING FOR WATCHFULPILGRIM

1 - The Bible’s original language may differ in meaning to English and apparent contradictions can arise which can only be resolved in the original language:

From John 9:

18 The Jews did not believe that he had been blind and had received his sight until they called the parents of the man who had received his sight

Never since the world began has it been heard that anyone opened the eyes of a person born blind. 33If this man were not from God, he could do nothing.’ 34They answered him, ‘You were born entirely in sins, and are you trying to teach us?’ And they drove him out.

Conclusion: The Jews drove him out so they obviously did not believe him, therefore verse 18 has a different meaning than what is said. → Check up ‘until’ in Greek and Latin:

orthodoxonline.com/ever_virginity.htm

2 - Luke 3:14 - demonstrates the validity of the military:

14 And 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.

The bolded bit in the greek lexicon (strong’s numbers 1286 and 5661) translates to financial advantage by violence - Greek word διασείσητε (diaseishte)

Source as given before: net.bible.org/verse.php?book=luk&chapter=3&verse=14

Neutral source, not Catholic. Including the KJV. Further confirmation pulled from another site on the KJV.

apostolic-churches.net/bible/strongs/ref/?stgh=greek&stnm=1286

Strong’s Greek Definition for # 1286

1286 // diaseiw // diaseio // dee-as-i’-o //

from 1223 and 4579 ; v

AV - do violence to 1; 1

1. to shake thoroughly
2. to make to tremble
3. to terrify
4. to agitate
5. to extort from one by intimidation money or other property

There are several meanings here, so why was the 5th chosen? Because John the Baptist also told them to be content with their wages, the job was one that induced violence if need be and the Roman military was brutal, therefore he is not even telling them to quit, thus it can only mean the correct meaning of ‘violence’ is best translated to extortion and not actual physical violence. This is actually confirmed by the other Bible sources:

NIV:

Then some soldiers asked him, “And what should we do?” He replied, “Don�t extort money and don�t accuse people falsely� be content with your pay.”

NASB:

Some soldiers were questioning him, saying, “And what about us, what shall we do?” And he said to them, “Do not take money from anyone by force, or accuse anyone falsely, and be content with your wages.”

All Bible versions are correct, including the KJV, it’s just that the KJV has rendered the meaning differently, and is correct if interpretation if one recognizes the different meanings present to ‘violence’.

Please respond to these two, forget my other posts. We will only deal with these two verses, move on only if you can disprove my post for dealing with these two verses. I chose these two to demonstrate that the Greek indeed does clear things up if you just read it for a few minutes, and that keeping this newly acquired knowledge of some basic Greek, the scriptures to Luke actually start making a lot more sense!!

I did this so that we don’t have to argue endlessly on other points.

Cheers

 

[WatchfulPilgrim]

Not hidden in Greek? Unless you are a Greek speaker, of course the Bible is hidden in Greek to you as that’s what all translations are done from. If you read the history of Bible translations even the modern ones are translated from the ‘original Greek’.

What I meant was that not all meaning is lost in translation. Which I demonstrated. Even with the “shaken” translation it does not makes sense. If it is wrong to even shake a person, how do you justify killing a person?

The meanings are not ‘lost’, if it’s lost then it’s not recoverable. However this does not mean that certain words and phrases do not have direct translations, this is an issue with the language not with God. Greek is a much fuller language than english, since latin came from greek and english comes from latin. I don’t even know why I have to go into this,

You don’t. You don’t raise anything I have not already considered in my years of seeking…

if you think you can read the English versions and get the same picture you are kidding yourself, which is what you just did before and therefore dismissed any of the Greek I presented to you, you didn’t even read it, hence the confusion arising NOW.

I have no idea where you get this. I clearly read it. I responded, more than once now, directly to your point.

Latin and Greek has something interesting which English does not, which caused confusion in English in Matthew 1:25 to some protestants some years ago in dealing with Mary and Joseph not having intercourse “until” Jesus was born, but a closer look at the earlier languages revealed that Greek “heos” and Latin “donc” was not a word that pointed to events afterwards like the English word ‘until’ does but only upto that moment. If you don’t know what I’m talking about:orthodoxonline.com/ever_virginity.htm
Since the eastern orthordox churches do far more greek study on this matter, I’m willing to trust them more than you, since the original language was in Greek. The issue is nowhere more blatantly clear in the language issue than in John 9:18 where:
But we all know that the Jews never actually believed the parents or that man, infact they chased the man away:
So did the Bible get it wrong? No, there was just confusion in translations on what the best word was to be used, and in English perhaps 500 - 600 years ago ‘until’ bore several meanings, that I’m not aware of, but it’s possible since English has changed too, I’m doing all this to demonstrate the major point, yes things are hidden away in Greek which is why Bible Scholars and even revisionists of KJV that you are using is done in Greek or even Aramaic.

I am aware of all these arguments. I’ve followed many a thread about the “until” argument. What I mean by things not being hidden in Greek is that, contrary to what you believe (and I once believed, and have done also…), I don’t think it is necessary to be a scholar of Greek, history or anything else to see what God’s message in Scripture is. Looked at as a whole, the “big picture” plainly shows the meaning of such isolated Scriptures as you are hand-picking here in an effort to support your argument. And as I’ve already shown, even your Greek translation does not support it.

Which also demonstrates the point that any random person picking up the Bible and deciding to follow his own understand will be gravely misguided, especially when compounded with an ignorant attitude.

You hit the nail on the head! Instead of looking to a supposed infallible magisterium, let us seek to be stripped of our arrogance. Then, it might just be possible to NOT be misguided.

cont…

 

[WatchfulPilgrim]

No one seems to want to answer some of my questions. First of all, no one wants to show how this doctrine does not contradict the doctrine against abortion. Secondly, no one has EVER, in all my years of posing this question, given me an answer. Why, OH WHY, is it that people, SIMPLE people, in Jesus’ time - some understood and followed Him, and others totally rejected Him? Was the lack of understanding on the part of some due to the absence of an infallible magisterium? Or was it some impediment on the part of the individual? Oddly, usually it was the LEARNED that REJECTED Him! Further, was it necessary that everyone understand His every word? Did the Apostles in John 6 UNDERSTAND Jesus’ “hard saying”? Or did they remain b/c, even though they did not understand, they had FAITH that whatever it was He was saying, it was true. Perhaps b/c Jesus had already given them sufficient reason to place their faith in Him. I could carry this out at great length but I simply can’t. The plain message I see in the big-picture of the NT is that some will understand Jesus b/c they are properly disposed; have the right disposition - and others will reject it b/c they have put their faith in the wrong place - usually in self or worldly interests. Certainly you will accuse me of the same, but regardless, my point is that I believe understanding, (and I believe the NT evidence overwhelmingly supports this) is something that comes through DISPOSITION and not through a (another) teacher (the supposed authoritative and infallible church). Jesus is a sufficient teacher. If we don’t “get” Him, then the problem lies in us. Not in blindly following a church’s claims.

I never said he can’t? The Bible is preserved, thanks to Catholics, Protestants and other Christians a-like, there is no issue in regards to that. The meaning however has changed through time in various denominations, this is obvious because Lutherans believe one thing whilst the others believe other things. Catholics and Orthodox have been rather static in their beliefs for the last 2000 years, so if anything it’s you who seems to believe that God is forever changing the meaning of the words.

The CC (orthodox or RC) has not been static. Absolutely not! And the contradiction to Bible traditions is surely an indication of that. And no - the meaning of the Bible has NOT changed through time. People, over time, change it’s meaning to conform to their own disordered and ungodly ways. It doesn’t matter that there are differences amongs Protestants. There are differences amongst Catholics as well. There can be millions of differences within Christendom and it changes nothing. There is only one truth which we had all better seek with all our hearts. You do that, and remain Catholic if you like. I will do the same, but I doubt I will remain Catholic. But in the end we are no different than those in the Scripture from Jesus’ day who heard the truth and some accepted it whilst others rejected it.

We all recognize you don’t have to sit a message board all day, there is no need to repeatedly say it many times, answer what you can, when you can. Redundant statements such as “you have scripture to learn” from is as void as “you have air to breath from” - I was quoting scripture as much as possible before, just as much as I was breathing in air.

Yes, and I appologed numerous times for having put it so arrogantly. This thread has been a painful reminder that most Christians do not understand or believe what to my understanding is very obvious, Christian doctrine.

Show me where I quoted the Catechism? Unless you do so, we won’t proceed… And no that 1983 letter from the Bishops isn’t the cathecism, i quoted that originally because I thought you were catholic in reading your profile.

I meant that perhaps you don’t see it in Scripture b/c you have a bias drawn from too much Catholic indoctrination. I speak from experience.

There is not all that much ‘anger’ here,

I wasn’t saying the anger was on your part. I admitted it was mine. If you could not even deduce that from my posts then there is no point in discussing this further. We are clearly talking past each other or you are reading things into my posts that aren’t there (something you accused ME of…).

Peace~

 

[WatchfulPilgrim]

SCRIPTURAL UNDERSTANDING FOR WATCHFULPILGRIM

1 - The Bible’s original language may differ in meaning to English and apparent contradictions can arise which can only be resolved in the original language:

From John 9:

Conclusion: The Jews drove him out so they obviously did not believe him, therefore verse 18 has a different meaning than what is said. → Check up ‘until’ in Greek and Latin:

orthodoxonline.com/ever_virginity.htm

2 - Luke 3:14 - demonstrates the validity of the military:

The bolded bit in the greek lexicon (strong’s numbers 1286 and 5661) translates to financial advantage by violence - Greek word διασείσητε (diaseishte)

Source as given before: net.bible.org/verse.php?book=luk&chapter=3&verse=14

Neutral source, not Catholic. Including the KJV. Further confirmation pulled from another site on the KJV.

apostolic-churches.net/bible/strongs/ref/?stgh=greek&stnm=1286

There are several meanings here, so why was the 5th chosen? Because John the Baptist also told them to be content with their wages, the job was one that induced violence if need be and the Roman military was brutal, therefore he is not even telling them to quit, thus it can only mean the correct meaning of ‘violence’ is best translated to extortion and not actual physical violence. This is actually confirmed by the other Bible sources:

NIV:
NASB:

All Bible versions are correct, including the KJV, it’s just that the KJV has rendered the meaning differently, and is correct if interpretation if one recognizes the different meanings present to ‘violence’.

Please respond to these two, forget my other posts. We will only deal with these two verses, move on only if you can disprove my post for dealing with these two verses. I chose these two to demonstrate that the Greek indeed does clear things up if you just read it for a few minutes, and that keeping this newly acquired knowledge of some basic Greek, the scriptures to Luke actually start making a lot more sense!!

I did this so that we don’t have to argue endlessly on other points.

Cheers

Although I’ve already answered this at least 2 or 3 times…

First of all, this text no where supports killing. John the Baptist is not Jesus. And most importantly, how would killing be justified if, according to the Greek translation, shaking, terrifying or agitating someone for money is wrong???:

 

[Harmony1988]

What I meant was that not all meaning is lost in translation. Which I demonstrated. Even with the “shaken” translation it does not makes sense. If it is wrong to even shake a person, how do you justify killing a person?

There were multiple meanings to that, and there was a reason why all the Bibles chose the last meaning referring to “extortion”, the KJV renders it in plain english as violence, it’s not wrong in that case at all, but it does leave it open to interpretation.

You don’t. You don’t raise anything I have not already considered in my years of seeking…

Then why question it?

I have no idea where you get this. I clearly read it. I responded, more than once now, directly to your point.

?

I am aware of all these arguments. I’ve followed many a thread about the “until” argument. What I mean by things not being hidden in Greek is that, contrary to what you believe (and I once believed, and have done also…), I don’t think it is necessary to be a scholar of Greek, history or anything else to see what God’s message in Scripture is. Looked at as a whole, the “big picture” plainly shows the meaning of such isolated Scriptures as you are hand-picking here in an effort to support your argument. And as I’ve already shown, even your Greek translation does not support it.

I never said you have to be a Greek scholar, but when verses and meanings are argued over, it’s always best to go to the original scriptures. With the resources on the internet you don’t have to be a greek scholar, I have no idea about Greek, but it’s not difficult for me to use google and see the meanings, it’s not my problem if you want to sit in your ignorance, i’m not better off in greek than you are.

Hand-picking? You did ask me to prove my point from scriptures in the NT, so you asked me to, you do not remember? What are you accusing me of now “hand-picking” - your arguments go further and further from the point.

You hit the nail on the head! Instead of looking to a supposed infallible magisterium, let us seek to be stripped of our arrogance. Then, it might just be possible to NOT be misguided.
cont…

I think the arrogance is in a single person refusing the magesterium AND the other protestant sources and then declaring himself to have gotten this issue right. So yea I did hit the nail on the head.

 

[Harmony1988]

Although I’ve already answered this at least 2 or 3 times…

First of all, this text no where supports killing. John the Baptist is not Jesus. And most importantly, how would killing be justified if, according to the Greek translation, shaking, terrifying or agitating someone for money is wrong???:

Ah…very good, just plainly avoid going through each line in my post. You can clearly do it long paragraphs and dissect my every line when it’s not scripture, but when it comes to scripture, you immediately said “I addressed it already”, so be kind enough to respond to each part to further enlighten me, I will not proceed from here, already there are enough of random points without having to deal with more.

By random points I mean this:

John the Baptist is not Jesus

• What exactly is this supposed to mean? Since we all know he is not Jesus, are you actually trying to say his saying on this matter is wrong?

The text supports the military, because he does tell them “be content with your wages”.

how would killing be justified if, according to the Greek translation, shaking, terrifying or agitating someone for money is wrong???

Killing is one issue, and stealing is another issue. Killing to protect is another issue, killing to stop mass murder is yet another issue, so do you see? John the Baptist did not have time to address all the issues and aspects of ‘killing’, all he said was do not extort [violence] → money.

He did not say “do not kill”, did he say “do not kill?” in this verse? You can’t just compare two issues and say “if this one is wrong, how is this not wrong” - we haven’t equated them yet and neither does the verse equate the two issues, so this question is redundant as it already PRESUPPOSES that killing in all instances is more evil than extortion. Whereas the whole point of this entire thread I think is more closely to the line of in which instances are killing OK?

I believe you have just committed the philosophical sin of assuming what was meant to be proved.

 

[WatchfulPilgrim]

There were multiple meanings to that, and there was a reason why all the Bibles chose the last meaning referring to “extortion”, the KJV renders it in plain english as violence, it’s not wrong in that case at all, but it does leave it open to interpretation.

But in light of other Scripture in which Jesus clearly teaches non-resistance, the big-picture leaves no doubt as to interpretation.

Then why question it?

I don’t question it. You can call it violence, shaking, whatever… the meaning is not hidden.

I never said you have to be a Greek scholar, but when verses and meanings are argued over, it’s always best to go to the original scriptures. With the resources on the internet you don’t have to be a greek scholar, I have no idea about Greek, but it’s not difficult for me to use google and see the meanings, it’s not my problem if you want to sit in your ignorance, i’m not better off in greek than you are.

I’ve no idea where this came from. I answered your Greek translation. I still don’t see how it supports you.

Hand-picking? You did ask me to prove my point from scriptures in the NT, so you asked me to, you do not remember? What are you accusing me of now “hand-picking” - your arguments go further and further from the point.

I say that b/c you dwell on this one Scripture b/c, I assume, John is talking to a soldier, and b/c he did not expressly state that killing is wrong, you have somehow deduced, from the Greek no less, that it is okay for a Christian to kill (and the soldier was not even yet a Christian…) when it is wrong, according to John, to intimidate another using force. There, I hope I spelled that out clearly enough…

I think the arrogance is in a single person refusing the magesterium AND the other protestant sources and then declaring himself to have gotten this issue right. So yea I did hit the nail on the head.

I will refuse anyone who teaches against Christ’s teachings. Magesterium, 33,000+ protestant denominations and all. It doesn’t matter one bit to me how powerful or popular the opinions are.

 

[Harmony1988]

But in light of other Scripture in which Jesus clearly teaches non-resistance

Which we all on this forum have answered to already.

You can call it violence, shaking, whatever… the meaning is not hidden.

The meaning is hidden if there are multiple meanings and one is not aware of the others, that’s called “hidden”, unless it’s revealed like today, it remains hidden.

I’ve no idea where this came from. I answered your Greek translation. I still don’t see how it supports you.

You have answered it by dismissing it, that’s all you’ve done.

I say that b/c you dwell on this one Scripture b/c, I assume, John is talking to a soldier, and b/c he did not expressly state that killing is wrong, you have somehow deduced, from the Greek no less, that it is okay for a Christian to kill (and the soldier was not even yet a Christian…) when it is wrong, according to John, to intimidate another using force.

I deduced that not because he did not expressly state it but because he told him to be happy with his wages, the wages from a job that asks the soldier to be violent if he as to, which you still haven’t answered to.

There, I hope I spelled that out clearly enough… I will refuse anyone who teaches against Christ’s teachings. Magesterium, 33,000+ protestant denominations and all. It doesn’t matter one bit to me how powerful or popular the opinions are.

There is no need to repeatedly say this, we all know this as you’ve told us in several posts, but I’m glad you do in a way since it really shows “arrogance” that lovely little word which you were so gladly accusing the Church of earlier. So it doesn’t matter how powerful the opinions are? I’m guessing powerful opinions are those that have good evidence and strong arguments, so in essence your statement can be rendered to:

“I don’t care how strong the argument is or how many people believe it is so, I will continue seeking and changing my mind every now and then on how best I see fit”

Pardon me if this is a strawman, but you might need to reword “powerful opinions”, because it looks like you are saying “despite all evidence I will refuse to believe”

Cheers

 

[WatchfulPilgrim]

One last response, b/c I am turning into a pumpkin at this point…

Ah…very good, just plainly avoid going through each line in my post. You can clearly do it long paragraphs and dissect my every line when it’s not scripture, but when it comes to scripture, you immediately said “I addressed it already”, so be kind enough to respond to each part to further enlighten me, I will not proceed from here, already there are enough of random points without having to deal with more.

I don’t know what you think I have not addressed.

By random points I mean this:

• What exactly is this supposed to mean? Since we all know he is not Jesus, are you actually trying to say his saying on this matter is wrong?

No, that is not what I mean. You cannot argue against non-resistance from this one small passage. John the Baptist did not give the full teaching on ANY matter. He does not expressly state that killing is wrong, but Jesus does. I know that John’s statement to the soldier is not a license to kill b/c he doesn’t introduce the Christian doctrine of non-resistance. The soldier has not even met Christ yet. I guess it was my short way of trying to show you that this one statement by John cannot and does not cancel out Jesus’ teachings.

The text supports the military, because he does tell them “be content with your wages”.

I see. And again, Jesus has not come on the scene yet. Perhaps John is preparing him a little at a time, no?

Killing is one issue, and stealing is another issue. Killing to protect is another issue, killing to stop mass murder is yet another issue, so do you see? John the Baptist did not have time to address all the issues and aspects of ‘killing’, all he said was do not extort [violence] → money.

Right. He did not have time to address all the issues, nor was it his duty to do so. But Jesus addressed them all with his numerous teachings and examples of non-resistance.

He did not say “do not kill”, did he say “do not kill?” in this verse?

Nope. And did he say “you can kill”? Nope. He said EXTORTION is wrong. Yet killing is okay?

You can’t just compare two issues and say “if this one is wrong, how is this not wrong” - we haven’t equated them yet and neither does the verse equate the two issues,

fair enough. so your point is moot too. this doesn’t say killing is okay either.

so this question is redundant as it already PRESUPPOSES that killing in all instances is more evil than extortion. Whereas the whole point of this entire thread I think is more closely to the line of in which instances are killing OK?

which this passage in no way touches on. That is why I think it is entirely irrelevant.

I believe you have just committed the philosophical sin of assuming what was meant to be proved.

I could stoop to accuse you of the same, but 'll let God be the judge.

 

[Harmony1988]

One last response, b/c I am turning into a pumpkin at this point…

No worries, all responses will be waiting for you when you arrive, answer them as you see fit.

No, that is not what I mean. You cannot argue against non-resistance from this one small passage. John the Baptist did not give the full teaching on ANY matter. He does not expressly state that killing is wrong, but Jesus does. I know that John’s statement to the soldier is not a license to kill b/c he doesn’t introduce the Christian doctrine of non-resistance. The soldier has not even met Christ yet. I guess it was my short way of trying to show you that this one statement by John cannot and does not cancel out Jesus’ teachings.

Why can’t we argue against non-resistance from this ‘one small passage’, is it because it is only one passage or is it because it’s small, or maybe both? I chose this passage amongst others because I believe it is easier for me to prove my case, since it’s from the Bible I don’t see why you would have a problem with it, there are other verses which I pointed out earlier and am more than happy to drag them along with the greek, if you wish.

I never said it canceled out Jesus’ teachings, that’s for you to prove that it doesn’t since it’s at odds with your opinion. It doesn’t matter how full a teaching John the Baptist gave, this verse is there for many reasons, and it’s there, deal with it, rather than concoct different ways to escape it. It is irrelevant the soldier hasn’t met Christ yet, what does this seriously have to do with the issue at hand? It’s IN the Bible and it’s there for a GOOD reason.

I see. And again, Jesus has not come on the scene yet. Perhaps John is preparing him a little at a time, no?

Unless there is evidence, this is all just conjecture. When there is immorality you don’t do away with it a little at a time, you do away with it all at once. Do you stop an addiction to pornography by watching less and less of it everyday? Or perhaps stop serial killing instincts by killing less and less each day or even stop thieving by thieving less? Case closed.

Right. He did not have time to address all the issues, nor was it his duty to do so. But Jesus addressed them all with his numerous teachings and examples of non-resistance.Nope. And did he say “you can kill”?

Neither did he say “you can do the rhumba and tango” - He did not say “you can kill” perhaps because the soldier didn’t ask him “can we kill?”, the soldier asked “what must we do?” and they got the reply, do not EXTORT, do not FALSELY ACCUSE, BE HAPPY WITH WAGES.

Nope. He said EXTORTION is wrong. Yet killing is okay? fair enough. so your point is moot too. this doesn’t say killing is okay either.

The soldier’s didn’t ask him whether killing was OK, neither did the soldiers ask whether drinking salt water was OK.

which this passage in no way touches on.

Because it wasn’t addressed, but given that they are from the military it is automatically known the military involves killing, so yes it does touch upon it because John the Baptist doesn’t tell them to quit, even when asked “what should we do?”

. I could stoop to accuse you of the same, but 'll let God be the judge.

Huh? I have a feeling you may have misunderstood “philosophical sin” to be some kind of real life sin Hahahahaha, “stoop to accuse you”, you actually thought it’s a low blow that one points out a fallacy in another’s argument? Show me where I assumed what I was meant to prove? Trust me, God’s judgement won’t be upon you, you just have to show me where I assumed what I was meant to prove, you’re safe here.

I was pointing out that in an argument, it’s considered “Wrong” or “fallacious” to assume what you are meant to be proving. God doesn’t have to be the judge of that no more than he has to be a judge to prove that water is actually a chemical compound of hydrogen and oxygen.

Nice one…

 

[WatchfulPilgrim]

Which we all on this forum have answered to already.

No, they have not

The meaning is hidden if there are multiple meanings and one is not aware of the others, that’s called “hidden”, unless it’s revealed like today, it remains hidden.

You have answered it by dismissing it, that’s all you’ve done.

dismissed for good reasons which I’ve already given.

I deduced that not because he did not expressly state it but because he told him to be happy with his wages, the wages from a job that asks the soldier to be violent if he as to, which you still haven’t answered to.

I most definately did - more than once now. Perhaps more than twice even…

There is no need to repeatedly say this, we all know this as you’ve told us in several posts, but I’m glad you do in a way since it really shows “arrogance” that lovely little word which you were so gladly accusing the Church of earlier.

Wow, you never cease to amaze me. I even admitted where I showed arrogance, but I will not back down on my convictions. I may have come out too strongly in opposition, for which I appologized (and which you ignore, among other things…), but it doesn’t change the valdity of the argument.

So it doesn’t matter how powerful the opinions are? I’m guessing powerful opinions are those that have good evidence and strong arguments, so in essence your statement can be rendered to:

“I don’t care how strong the argument is or how many people believe it is so, I will continue seeking and changing my mind every now and then on how best I see fit”

The argument is weak. And no, I don’t care how popular it is.

Pardon me if this is a strawman, but you might need to reword “powerful opinions”, because it looks like you are saying “despite all evidence I will refuse to believe”

Cheers

I see no evidence.

This is no longer a civil or Christian discussion, and we are getting absolutely nowhere but running in circles.

I’ve already browsed you next post. Man, I just can’t do this any longer, and here is why.

You asked the questionss, I gave you my answers. You want to dissect, no inject a Scripture with something that is not there. I am trying to get you to look at this passage in the light of the whole of Jesus’ teachings so that we can gain a better understanding of it. You don’t want to see the big picture though I supposed, b/c it does not suite your argument.

There are too many things we don’t know about the situation in this passage. Is it certain that all soldiers had the same duty? Why is John specifically telling him not to resort to extortion? I trust John knew more about the circumstances than we do. It simply does not make logical sense that John would forbid extortion and allow murder.

This is exactly why I see no point in carrying on about this. I can’t believe we are arguing about such a fundamental truth as this. I can’t believe you would try to read into this passage that killing is okay.

Huh? I have a feeling you may have misunderstood “philosophical sin” to be some kind of real life sin

I was pointing out that in an argument, it’s considered “Wrong” or “fallacious” to assume what you are meant to be proving. God doesn’t have to be the judge of that no more than he has to be a judge to prove that water is actually a chemical compound of hydrogen and oxygen.

Nice one…

Ridicule me all you like. It wasn’t a charitable response.

I absolutely cannot continue in this discussion. It is not a discussion any longer but an uncharitable argument.

Call it a cop out if you like, but again, its very clear from Scripture. ALL of the NT Scriptures as a whole support non-resistance. If you don’t see that, there is nothing I can say that will convince you.

Peace, and, over and out, for good.

 

[sodak]

I have applied to the army recently, hopefully I get in, but I have also been thinking how moral is it in terms of looking forward to it? I know there are a lot of Christians in the armed forces, if I ever get a chance at deployment (if I get in) I would be pretty excited, does this conflict with the Christian faith?

Certainly every country needs their armed forces, but how can you look forward to deploying with a great possibility of killing people and still live out a Christian life? Sure they maybe terrorists, but I’m sure most soldiers have no ill-will towards the people they kill, it’s just war, and there is barely any hatred (or so I’ve read, it’s just who lives and who doesn’t, dictated by politics)

Hi Harmony,

Congratulations on your decision! You have chosen a very honorable profession. I was in the Army for 6 years, my sister and her husband for over 30, my dad for 33 years, and my mom in the Dutch underground for several during WW2.

You can think of this choice as a violent one, but it’s also a very noble one. The military brings freedom, peace, and stability to millions of people all over the world. Yes, it has to use force for this, but the Gospels and the Church tell us that Christ never condemned military men, and also affirmed the rights of Governments to use force when necessary. So don’t worry too much about the morality of your choice. Here are some good words to think about:

It is the soldier, not the reporter, who has given us freedom of the press.
It is the soldier, not the poet, who has given us freedom of speech.
It is the soldier, not the campus organizer, who has given us the freedom to demonstrate.
It is the soldier, who salutes the flag, who serves beneath the flag, and whose coffin is draped by the flag, who allows the protester to burn the flag.

– Father Denis Edward O’Brien, USMC

 

[Harmony1988]

No, they have not

Yes, we have, just like you say “yes i have” when I say you haven’t. We can go back and forth on this if you wish, it’s up to you.

dismissed for good reasons which I’ve already given.

But you said you already ‘answered them’ - and now you say you ‘dismissed’ them, answering the question is not the same as dismissing it, so either you’re lying, or you failed to realize that.

I most definately did - more than once now. Perhaps more than twice even…

I was not aware? Was this one of your convoluted answers where you ‘dismiss’ things (as you testified to just now?

Wow, you never cease to amaze me. I even admitted where I showed arrogance, but I will not back down on my convictions. I may have come out too strongly in opposition, for which I appologized (and which you ignore, among other things…), but it doesn’t change the valdity of the argument.

I don’t think you’ve said this to me before, you may have to some of the other users, I haven’t entirely looked at your answers to the other users. You can’t admit arrogance and then accuse someone else of it too, I believe in the Bible that’s called hypocrisy. Admitting arrogance and then being arrogant again is not a fix either, I know I’m highly sarcastic and arrogant at times, but I didn’t start pointing the finger, you did.

The argument is weak. And no, I don’t care how popular it is. I see no evidence.

I can say something similar to you, this is called “dismissal” - watch carefull;

Your argument is weak, and I don’t care that it’s your opinion. I see no evidence

This is no longer a civil or Christian discussion, and we are getting absolutely nowhere but running in circles.

Because you keep dismissing things and answering them as “I see no evidence”, perhaps that’s why.

I’ve already browsed you next post. Man, I just can’t do this any longer, and here is why.

You asked the questionss, I gave you my answers. You want to dissect, no inject a Scripture with something that is not there. I am trying to get you to look at this passage in the light of the whole of Jesus’ teachings so that we can gain a better understanding of it. You don’t want to see the big picture though I supposed, b/c it does not suite your argument.

I didn’t inject anything, I gave you sources with english and greek, let me find the spanish for you too? What other languages do you speak?

We aren’t oblivious to Jesus’ teachings, we have answered to your other verses “such as turn the other cheek” - we said it was a demonstration of how NOT to take revenge, it wasn’t an issue of protecting someone which is a right of man. etc.

There are too many things we don’t know about the situation in this passage. Is it certain that all soldiers had the same duty? Why is John specifically telling him not to resort to extortion? I trust John knew more about the circumstances than we do. It simply does not make logical sense that John would forbid extortion and allow murder.

Please don’t state the obvious such as “John new more about the circumstances” - and you wonder why we are getting no where. And similarly this could be said of all passages in the Bible, we don’t know about the situation entirely. It is irrelevant that the soldiers had the same duty, but in the military you are ALL trained to an extent to combat. No matter what the post is, even the cook.

Look at that bolded bit, this is what is called ‘ridiculous’ - you are meant to prove it, not give your opinion and expect others to believe it. John does not ‘allow’ murder, murder is actually different from killing.

Murder - "kill intentionally and with premeditation; “The mafia boss ordered his enemies murdered”

Kill - "cause to die; put to death, usually intentionally or knowingly; “This man killed several people when he tried to rob a bank”; “The farmer killed a …”

Kill is generic, murder is not. John by saying “be happy with your wages” is telling them to continue with their duty is he not? It seems he sense that they weren’t happy, which is why he told them. Whether it makes sense to you is irrelevant, it’s there in Bible passage.

In other words “I can’t believe you see things my way” - this is called arrogance.

I can’t believe you would try to read into this passage that killing is okay. Ridicule me all you like. It wasn’t a charitable response.

You continuously mix up murder and kill. I never said that this passage directly says “killing is ok” - but he did say “be happy with your wages” - which is an indication to continue with their jobs. What if you tell a prostitute “be happy with your wages?” - what’s the job of a prostitute, do you get it now?

I absolutely cannot continue in this discussion. It is not a discussion any longer but an uncharitable argument.

Uncharitable, I wonder why (refuse to take evidence, call others arrogant, then apologize for being arrogant, then be arrogant again, repeatedly dismiss and then exclaim that you can’t believe it’s going in circles)

 

[Harmony1988]

Call it a cop out if you like, but again, its very clear from Scripture. ALL of the NT Scriptures as a whole support non-resistance. If you don’t see that, there is nothing I can say that will convince you.

Peace, and, over and out, for good.

NT Scriptures promote non-violence when able to do so, it illustrates not to take revenge, and various other aspects. I’d like you to point out where Jesus says “I support non-resistance” or “Be non-resistant”, in specific I’d like to see that “non-resistant” word somewhere in the Bible, this is important because this is actually a philosophy in itself as seen by Gandhi’s movement, so for you to say this I’d like to actually see this, if it exists, I’d definitely like to take a closer look at it for obvious reasons.

If not, peace out.

 

[Harmony1988]

Yes, we have, just like you say “yes i have” when I say you haven’t. We can go back and forth on this if you wish, it’s up to you.

But you said you already ‘answered them’ - and now you say you ‘dismissed’ them, answering the question is not the same as dismissing it, so either you’re lying, or you failed to realize that.

I was not aware? Was this one of your convoluted answers where you ‘dismiss’ things (as you testified to just now?

I don’t think you’ve said this to me before, you may have to some of the other users, I haven’t entirely looked at your answers to the other users. You can’t admit arrogance and then accuse someone else of it too, I believe in the Bible that’s called hypocrisy. Admitting arrogance and then being arrogant again is not a fix either, I know I’m highly sarcastic and arrogant at times, but I didn’t start pointing the finger, you did.

I can say something similar to you, this is called “dismissal” - watch carefull;

Your argument is weak, and I don’t care that it’s your opinion. I see no evidence

Because you keep dismissing things and answering them as “I see no evidence”, perhaps that’s why.

I didn’t inject anything, I gave you sources with english and greek, let me find the spanish for you too? What other languages do you speak?

We aren’t oblivious to Jesus’ teachings, we have answered to your other verses “such as turn the other cheek” - we said it was a demonstration of how NOT to take revenge, it wasn’t an issue of protecting someone which is a right of man. etc.

Please don’t state the obvious such as “John new more about the circumstances” - and you wonder why we are getting no where. And similarly this could be said of all passages in the Bible, we don’t know about the situation entirely. It is irrelevant that the soldiers had the same duty, but in the military you are ALL trained to an extent to combat. No matter what the post is, even the cook.

Look at that bolded bit, this is what is called ‘ridiculous’ - you are meant to prove it, not give your opinion and expect others to believe it. John does not ‘allow’ murder, murder is actually different from killing.

Murder - "kill intentionally and with premeditation; “The mafia boss ordered his enemies murdered”

Kill - "cause to die; put to death, usually intentionally or knowingly; “This man killed several people when he tried to rob a bank”; “The farmer killed a …” (so this leaves room for killing by methods that are not intentional), other forms of death go in this, like killing to protect.

Kill is generic, murder is not. John by saying “be happy with your wages” is telling them to continue with their duty is he not? It seems he sense that they weren’t happy, which is why he told them. Whether it makes sense to you is irrelevant, it’s there in Bible passage.

In other words “I can’t believe you see things my way” - this is called arrogance.

 

[WatchfulPilgrim]

NT Scriptures promote non-violence when able to do so, it illustrates not to take revenge, and various other aspects. I’d like you to point out where Jesus says “I support non-resistance” or “Be non-resistant”, in specific I’d like to see that “non-resistant” word somewhere in the Bible, I’d like to actually see this, if it exists, I’d definitely like to take a closer look at it for obvious reasons.
.

Thanks be to God!

I did this in my first several posts. I linked you to an article that gave you Scripture references AS WELL AS ECF beliefs which were clearly, not only non-resistant, but non-political.

You’ve already admitted that you have not read all of my posts, so please go back and read them.

38Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:

39But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.

40And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also.

41And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain.

42Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away.

43Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.

44But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;

45That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.

46For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same?

47And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so?

48Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.

Don’t kid yourself about the supposed difference between killing and murder. You may not even even hate your brother without commiting murder in your heart. And if you do not hate the one you point your gun at, can you say you love them, as Jesus commands you? How is it love to kill someone whose soul is about to be eternally lost?

You can’t honestly look at these Scriptures cited above and say that this doesn’t cover using force to protect others from harm. The people you would use force against are not being treated by you as an enemy? Is it ok to kill someone that is someone else’s enemy? Do you really think you can remove yourself form the situation as if you were not personally involved when you pull the trigger in war?

Yes, I dismissed some of your points, AFTER answering them. I don’t see how they prove your argument. For instance, at best, the Luke passage proves that John the Baptist didn’t condemn his military position. The fact remains that the Douay translation, a very good CATHOLIC translation says “violence”. This may be b/c your very strong “Tradition” wants to convey the proper meaning behind his statement: not to do violence to anyone. Could also be b/c God does not want someone like yourself to read something into this that was not meant to be there. The fact that “violence” is so often used in translation certainly does shed some light as to what John meant and it very well supports my argument. Could also be that you are mistaken or have been wrongly informed about the meanings of these Greek words. That is why I prefer to leave the Greek to the Greeks and trust that the meaning was not lost and can easily be understood when looked at in the context of the entire Christian message.

 

[WatchfulPilgrim]

Harmony, you sounded sincere in that last post. My prayer is that you will continue to pursue the truth in this matter.

Realizing my error in returning to the CC, it borders on sinful for me to remain here. I mainly participate in this forum to strengthen my convictions, not to debate. You probably would not want to invite a mob of JWs into your home and allow them to try to indoctrinate you . Likewise, it looks deceptive for me to stay here if it is not with an openness to learning the Catholic position - something I definately am not interested in at this point. On the contrary, I believe I’ve been deceived and I do not want such an important Chistian principal such as this to be brainwashed out of me. No offense to you - I know that is not your intention - but the only way I can see this among most other Catholic doctrines is to either accept it based on authority (regardless of my "mis"understanding) or to allow myself to be deceived or to allow it to be brainwashed into me.

If you are sincere about learning more I encourage you to first and foremost to read Scripture, and take it to God in prayer. The website I got those articles from is an excellent one. Please feel free to PM me if I can be of further assistance, but only if it is to sincerely learn. I will not debate you or anyone else.

I’m not returning this time as I believe I’ve provided enough evidence throughout this thread to show any sincere Christian that Christ was non-resistant and so were the earliest Christians. Scriptures cited, ECF writings cited, the observations of other historical figures cited in the articles I posted links to… The evidence is overwhelmingly in support of non-resistance UP TO the 3rd or 4th century. But even if it were lost in the end of the first century it would not prove anything b/c the Scriptures themselves are witness to non-resistance.

Please pray about this. It is not a doctrine of Christ.

Leaving now.

 

[Harmony1988]

Thanks be to God!

I did this in my first several posts. I linked you to an article that gave you Scripture references AS WELL AS ECF beliefs which were clearly, not only non-resistant, but non-political.

I don’t think so, if you have posted it to me, then I missed it.

You’ve already admitted that you have not read all of my posts, so please go back and read them.

You make it sound like an accusation and that I ‘admitted’ it, I simply said I haven’t read all your posts since a lot of it didn’t deal with issues I brought up, and also your ability to mix multiple quotes from others in a single one. (Remember the slurpy)

38Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:

39But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.

Talk about lack of Bible study Possibly the silliest kind of argument against ‘resistance’ to bring up, answered on these forums at least a million times:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=110472

I’ve also said it before, it’s about NOT retaliating. But since you don’t take heed to catholic opinions or other protestant opinions, I guess there’s no point linking you to anything. So I’ll give my personal interpretation again, and the best you have is yours, so this will end in a stalemate, be sure of that.

This passage is not about non-resistance pacificism as you seem to imply, and I did indeed mention this earlier, “non-resistance” as a philosophy is quite different from the meaning of the word “resist” - and Jesus Christ advocated no such philosophy.

Jesus is correcting the errors of vengeance here, why else would he say " you have heard it said an eye for an eye" - because that’s vengeance, so he’s saying do not take vengeance. Unless you wish to imply that Jesus literally meant if someone hits you on the cheek, then you must ask the person to smack you on your other cheek too. I’m assuming you don’t take literally, but figuratively.

He is not dealing with self-defence, but it seems here he is:

Luke 22:36, which says: " 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".

Don’t kid yourself about the supposed difference between killing and murder. You may not even even hate your brother without commiting murder in your heart. And if you do not hate the one you point your gun at, can you say you love them, as Jesus commands you? How is it love to kill someone whose soul is about to be eternally lost?

Actually murder and killing are not the same, killing is a generic term to take death. There can be accidental deaths by the hands of another person, such as the 16 year old girl who killed her mother by accident by reversing the car into her, as she was a learner. This does not classify as “murder”. I think it’s wise to actually think of some examples before posting something that’s contrary to common sense.

You do not have to hate the person who you point your gun at, especially in the battle-field it’s quite hard to hate someone you don’t even see, unless you’re racist or something along those lines, infact most soldiers do not have hate for their enemy, they see the job as something they have to do for defence of their country.

Can I say I love them? Depends, not all people can love immediately. You can preach here about love, but you seem to get flustered a bit in this thread as it is when people say things contrary to your opinion, let alone a situation with a gun. I need to be given a situation with a “gun” and who exactly I’m killing, a random terrorist? Someone who killed my family? A rapist? This is all very dependent on the circumstance, whilst Jesus calls everyone to love, to love does not indicate others can do what they want. Jesus himself as someone said here earlier, took a whip, threw tables and drove people out, that’s not the classic example of ‘love’, he was mad, and he was armed, it’s love alright, but tough love. Jesus did what he had to keep the temple holy. In these days we do things to keep the sanctity of life, and that includes being armed and possibly hurting people.

Now rethink your redundant questions.

You can’t honestly look at these Scriptures cited above and say that this doesn’t cover using force to protect others from harm. The people you would use force against are not being treated by you as an enemy? Is it ok to kill someone that is someone else’s enemy? Do you really think you can remove yourself form the situation as if you were not personally involved when you pull the trigger in war?

These kind of statements are again void. I can say the same thing to you, you can’t honestly look at all these scriptures i have presented and say self-defence is not OK (and the saga continues, this is not even an argument, try again)

Yes, I dismissed some of your points, AFTER answering them.

Maybe, but I did ask you by PM to address the greek scriptures line by line, you did not do so, I told you to forget everything else and address those issues, that is all I have to say about this.

 

[Harmony1988]

I don’t see how they prove your argument. For instance, at best, the Luke passage proves that John the Baptist didn’t condemn his military position. The fact remains that the Douay translation, a very good CATHOLIC translation says “violence”. This may be b/c your very strong “Tradition” wants to convey the proper meaning behind his statement: not to do violence to anyone. Could also be b/c God does not want someone like yourself to read something into this that was not meant to be there. The fact that “violence” is so often used in translation certainly does shed some light as to what John meant and it very well supports my argument. Could also be that you are mistaken or have been wrongly informed about the meanings of these Greek words. That is why I prefer to leave the Greek to the Greeks and trust that the meaning was not lost and can easily be understood when looked at in the context of the entire Christian message.

I’m well aware of that, and like the KJV, the ‘violence’ has different meanings, and is the exact same meanings since they both use the Greek scriptures, what’s the problem here now? I don’t care what Bible you want to use, take a look at the greek, and don’t whine about not knowing it, I don’t know greek either, but it’s frankly not difficult to take a look at a transliteration dictionary (which I’ve provided) and see all the possible meanings for “violence” in the greek language → one which was extortion (We covered this, do you forget easily?)

I never said the meaning was lost, at least not in the absolute sense, but to us here it is since we don’t speak Greek, and definitely to you.

You want to leave the greek to the greek speakers only? SURE No problem, just answer this contradiction for me then, because the Bible now, in english is contradicting itself (KJV):

John 9 - “The Jews did not believe that he had been blind and had received his sight until they called the parents of the man who had received his sight”

“They answered him, ‘You were born entirely in sins, and are you trying to teach us?’ And they drove him out.”

So did they believe the blind man in the end or did they not believe him? Because the first verse says they did not believe that he had been blind until they spoke to the parents, but yet they drive him out? Oh dear, contradiction. Feel free to read the rest of John 9:18, I didn’t paste it all since it was rather long.

Get back to me when you’ve sorted out the contradiction.