On the contrary what would be more sinful would be for you to not convert us, and just throw in the towelā¦I mean come on after all that debating, to leave just now? Donāt give up half-way on what God called you to do.
I guess youāve done a darn good job of messing that up now huh
Perhaps not, but if itās the internet, and itās a thread I decided to argue in, I canāt point the finger at anyone, no brought you in here, you came in here and now you are leaving kicking and screaming and pointing the finger, coming up with phony excuses about how sinful it is to debate with Catholics.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.
Cool, thatās up to you.
You claim you arenāt infallible, and then mention your mis-understandings, and then encourage me to learn from you?
This is all your belief, most of us here donāt believe that you provided overwhelming evidence.
Bye byeLeaving now.
and yes we must all pray 
I think this part here adequately tells us your view. Your not interested in what the Bible says, your interested in what you think your English translation of the Bible says. You completely fail to understand (or dismiss cause it doesnāt support you) that Jesus did not speak English. The bible was never translated in English until very recently. Greek, Hebrew and Latin are all FAR more descriptive languages than English. Example: Greek has four distinct words for love: agape, eros, philia, and storgÄ. They all mean something very distinct and different and they are all translated in to English as simply love. You lose meaning, that doesnāt mean its now wrong but youāve just lost the full meaning of the passage. (Here for reference en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_words_for_love) Any intellectually honest person interested in what the Bible says understands they are going to have to go back to meaning of the original language. Not because the translation is wrong but because its deficient and special English translations completely lacking the descriptiveness of the original language. You however are completely dismissive of this fact and even state that your not interested in finding out the full meaning and insist that English is good enough for you even though there are thoughts and idea in the Bible that simply can not be fully expressed in English.
Unfortunately I donāt live in the USA heheThere is a Catholic Archdiocese for the Military Services.
milarch.org/
CatholicMil is also a good resource.
catholicmil.org/
http://www.milarch.org/images/hd_homepage1.jpg
Good luck in the army!
Why limit this to the New Testament? Do you reject the inspiration of the Old Testament?
You said that the Law of Moses that God gave did not apply because we are not Jews. Yet the question here, āWhere did Jesus sayā¦?ā is answered that he frequently said that there is a time for killing that he himself has ordered. I believe a lot of people have a false dichotomy of who Jesus is. We must not forget that he is one with the Father and exists from the begining. When we read the words of the Old Testament, we also read the words of Jesus, the Eternal Word. We can not separate the God of the Old Testament from the God of the New.
Those are interesting quotes, Iāll have to look at them in context.
Agreed, but when it comes to Christian theology, the more minority your viewpoint, the more people youāre saying are being deluded despite their sincerity.
Actually, it did: Jesus Himself had to explain His teachings on several occasions.
Just because a teaching is āhardā doesnāt mean itās from God. Donāt mistake difficulty for truth.
The issue is that you made a claim earlier, seemingly in defense of the conclusions youāve come to, that you do not believe that God would mislead a sincere seeker. Iām disproving this claim. I myself am a sincere seeker, and yet Iāve come to the opposite conclusion you have. So you must adjust your claim, either to say that God misleads sincere seekers (of course He doesnāt!), or to say that sincere seekers can still be misled, in which case your claim cannot apply both to your sincere seeking and to my sincere seeking.
Then the only conclusion is that sincerity has nothing to do with arrival at the truth. Donāt you agree?
I understand that you see this as a manifestation of your willingness to obey Godās will wherever it leads, and I wonāt disagree (for the sake of charitability), but for your own sake, you might want to look into whether itās actually more a result of your character: are you fickle? Do you always feel the need to take āthe road less traveledā? Are you pugilistic, and enjoy taking the less popular position in debates simply because itās less popular? I say this because I myself have to constantly ask myself whether I do what I do because I want to rebel against my parents, because I know thatās something Iām prone to do when the opportunity arises. Itās at least worth some consideration.
For my part, I think the idea that a man shouldnāt save his wife and children from an aggressor is obviously against the nature of Christ, who came to seek and save the lost, to protect and defend the least of these. I think a father who looked on and refused to defend his children from an aggressor intent on raping and torturing them would very much cause them to stumble, and it would be better for him to have a millstone hung around his neck and be cast into the sea, than sit idly by while his helpless children are raped and tortured.
The Catholic Church only contradicts Christās teachings as best you understand them, you must admit. Unless you are claiming personal infallibility in this regard, and weāve established youāre not, then you must admit the possibility that youāve misinterpreted Christās teachings in this regard, and that the Catholic Church may be correct.
The canonization of Scripture was the āgood endā in my argument, which was arrived at by the āevil meansā of a (supposedly) false faith by which works were measured and determined canonical or non-canonical.
Thereās a much deeper argument to be had here, but Iād rather flesh it out separately and save it for another thread.
But likewise, just because something is hard to do does not mean it is true.
No, itās not. You canāt have it both ways: in post #29 you rejected our claims because āYou have to give up common sense to agree with this one.ā Further, in post #62 you countered one of my arguments by saying, āNo. It is my God-given common sense.ā Clearly even you do not believe that common sense is a manifestation of the carnal nature!
Surely you donāt believe that Christ really taught hate here, do you? That might be an example of a confusing teaching, but itās not an example of a teaching āagainst our nature.ā
What Christ never taught, and where you go astray, is in saying that we should not resist evil that seeks to oppress the weak and helpless. Christās āResist not evilā statement was made in the clear context of personal offenses and is limited to such: it does not extend to the actions of governments (Romans 13) or the actions of reasonable, righteous men defending the weak and helpless from an aggressor. You have taken āResist not evilā out of its context and applied it too widely.
If you are fallible, then even if the Church is fallible, you still have no real basis upon which to argue that it has no authority because it disagrees with your fallible conclusions.
On the contrary, itās you who is injecting Scripture with something that isnāt there.
āThe big pictureā is that thereās a lot more nuance to āResist not evilā than youāre willing to admit. Weāre looking at the big picture: weāre drawing in passages by John the Baptist, Paul, and other statements of Christ, as well as looking at the immediate context of Christās teachings of non-resistance, while youāre basing your entire argument on one single sentence, isolated from its context: āResist not evil.ā Youāre the one refusing to see the big picture.
Not all killing is murder; using āmurderā is just prejudicial language here.
No, they donāt. The best you have is āResist not evilā but as has been shown, that statement is limited by its context to personal injury, not to defense of others.
One passage of Scripture, taken out of context, and a few ECFs opposed to Christiansā involvement in (likely immoral) wars.
Thank you for your kind post.Hey, pilgrim, just to add a cent or two here, I state that I agree with your position on the (non)use of violence, but I must also submit that the ājust warā theory is not an infallible doctrine of the Church. Itās not dogma, itās a theological theory. A Catholic may fully be a pacifist, and is free to think the ājust warā theory is not correct for reasons just stated. The catholic pacifist position is very much a non-contradictory position.
So, no need to leave the Church on the account of disagreement with the ājust warā theory.
God bless.
P.S.
Iām not interested in being dragged in the debate here, since Iāve participated in such debates many a time and have found them to lead absolutely nowhere. Unless you have a document where the just war theory is declared dogma, that is. Then Iād be in a heap of trouble
Let me expound on your post. The doctrine of the Church has been constant in this area since the start. That said, the Church also has highly valued the pacifist position and respected those who are willing to die for the faith, rather than take a life or even fight back.
The only time one goes against the teaching of the Church is when one claims that pacifism is the only path and there is no possibility for just defense, or when one goes the other way and says the pacifist position is anticatholic. There is room for both without contradiction.
Sorry, but I must protest to the idea that the teaching has been constant since the start. The pacifism of the ECF-s shows that. Now, whether you agree with them or not is another issue, but it demonstrates that they held a position very different from the just war theory as we know it. The theory itself evolved from Augustine to Aquinas to what we know today. You can easily check this out by reading some of the stuff they had to say on it. You can find some neatly organized references from the ECF-s on this via a quick search, so I wonāt post them here, as Iām limited in time.
Thanks for the reply. I hope and pray that you find the Catholic Church the real deal, and that you find the Truth you so passionately seek.Thank you for your kind post.
This may be the straw that broke the camelās back. I was holding onto Catholicism by one small thread by holding the belief that the CC has to be authoritative and infallible. That belief has been falling apart over the past several weeks. And since there are few if any doctrines, dogmas or practices in the CC that I believe are truly Apostolic, once the issue of authority falls apart, there isnāt much left to hold me to the Catholic faith.
The more I think on this more prayerfully, the more I realize what a monumental endeavor it would be to try to explain non-resistance, since there are many other Christian principals involved which the CC does not adhere to. So it was quite an arrogant position of mine to take in asserting that this is so āobviousā.
My contribution to this thread:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=271754
ā¦and this thread that I started as a split from the other one:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=273119
ā¦may help shed some light on the many side-issues involved with non-resistance.
I am not throwing in the towel just yet. In december I had and epiphany of sorts about the incarnational and sacramental nature of the church which still has me somewhat dumbfounded when contrasted with my fundamentalist, ss viewpoints. I seem to have 2 opposing viewpoints - both of which are very clear to me.
Add to this the fact that I am an abstract thinker and a terrible teacher. To top this off, I am really pressed for time with other obligations which makes my responses sloppy and inadequate.
So for now, I will just sit on this a while in prayer and see what happensā¦
Bless You~
Actually, it would require a lot of free time, and its really only my feeble attempt to try to show the principles involved. I really think this article says it best.
Blessings~
Itās roots, as shown are in both our Jewish heritage and the writings of Paul. I know also what Augustine has written. While not dogma and no one has claimed it as such, but it is also not theory, but doctrine, as it has been taught for at least 1600 years.
As such, we can not simply downgrade it and call it an inferior position. Such a statement does injustice to those who have nobly chosen to take to the defense of their fellow man and followed the path of greater love as enumerated by Jesus.
Let us remember that this thread started, not for the sake of one struggling with the Churchās teaching on pacifism but for one seeking to enter the military life. We do not justice to Watchful Pilgrim by downgrading the Churchās doctrine of self-defense.
The pacifism of the ECFs was also in the context of unjust wars of aggression, was it not?
Not necessarily: you need to show not only that they were pacifists, but that they were pacifists even in the context of just wars. As far as Iām aware, you havenāt shown that, but Iām open to your efforts to do so.
I was thinking of the insufficient explanation I already gave in answer to this, and did want to try to clarify that, so Iāll answer for myself here (not sure what Hrvoje would answer).
I think this interpretation of the passage is incorrect. I know that law enforcement and military combatants nobly put their lives at risk, for which I am most grateful. The opposition is the possibility that one will have to use lethal means to subdue another. That is what my opposition is and is one of the reasons groups like the Mennonites are opposed to participation in the military or law enforcement. When I consider this verse in John 15 that Pnewton cited I think more on the lines of St. Maximillian Kolbe who volunteered the taking of his life in exchange for that of the husband/father the Nazis wanted to kill. Thinking along those lines, I would probably try to hide my family or shield them in some way from a perpetrator. But I wouldnāt grab my gun (if I had one, which I never would anyway unless I used it for huntingā¦) and kill him.
You have a noble and totally acceptable position, though it is not mine. In the case of the early Fathers, dying passively usually meant giving oneās life as a witness to the faith. While not all are required to be martyrs, the Church will always honor those who can. I value the witness of St. Kolbe. In the case of defense of oneās own life and family in this case, the Church also allows for self-defense. I think the motive behind defending oneself, or oneās family is important. It is one thing to die for the faith and quite another to die for the greed or lust of an assailant.