The Army and being a Catholic

[Harmony1988]

I have to start off saying that I looked up what you called the KJV account of this Scripture and I don’t see the same wording? You gave me thisthis was from one of your posts, not sure which. I think on page 8 somewhere, but maybe not the original one - not sure…)
I assume you mean this (from the KJV if you wish):

There are different versions of the KJV it appears:

bible.crosswalk.com/OnlineStudyBible/bible.cgi?passage=John+9:18&version=av

That’s one of them, in either case, they all say pretty much the same thing, my concern is regarding that ‘until’.

You did welcome me to read the entire chapter, which was good advice.

The Jews simply didn’t like what the (once)-blind man had to say. They were hoping to find some way to accuse Jesus. They didn’t believe this man was blind at all. Here is the full account from the first verse you cited 'til the last (again, from the KJV):
So it is true that they did not know that he had been blind until they called the parents. They didn’t believe…they asked them…and they said that he was born blind.

Precisely, so they asked the parents if the man was blind, and the parents said in some way or the other that he was blind. And the Bible says they did not believe the blind man UNTIL they spoke to the parents:

But the Jews did not believe concerning him, that he had been blind, and received his sight, until they called the parents of him that had received his sight.

So where is the contradiction? And what does that have to do with them driving him out?

The contradiction lies blatantly obvious in the fact that the Bible says they didn’t believe him until they talked to the parents, yet they drove him out, look carefully here:

28Then they hurled insults at him and said, “You are this fellow’s disciple! We are disciples of Moses! 29We know that God spoke to Moses, but as for this fellow, we don’t even know where he comes from.”."

30The man answered, “Now that is remarkable! You don’t know where he comes from, yet he opened my eyes. 31We know that God does not listen to sinners. He listens to the godly man who does his will. 32Nobody has ever heard of opening the eyes of a man born blind. 33If this man were not from God, he could do nothing.”

34To this they replied, “You were steeped in sin at birth; how dare you lecture us!” And they threw him out.

It’s clear that they believe the man is a sinner, the believe that Jesus is a sinner, they don’t believe the man, and they don’t believe Jesus is from God, what is so extremely difficult to understand? The simple fact is, that they don’t believe HIM, yet John 9:18 says they only believed him after they spoke to the parents.

I can’t see how you CAN’T see that after they accuse him of sin, insult Jesus and kick him out that you can think they actually believe him.

They cast him out b/c he admitted that he believed the man (Jesus) was “of God”. And the Jews don’t like the conclusion that a simple, once-born-blind-man came to, b/c he was a sinner.

Yes they cast him out because of that, that’s not what I’m disagreeing with, but the fact still remains they think he was lying, they do not believe he was blind at all, yet John 9:18 says they did not believe him UNTIL they spoke to the parents.

This is a re-occuring theme. Jesus does or says something (or here, the blind man says something) that points to Jesus’ divinity. And the Jews are looking for just that. They want to kill him b/c of His supposed blasphemy.

I’ve had many discussions like this one with JWs a few years ago. I was blown away when they said they didn’t believe in Jesus’ divinity. It is all throughout Scripture. As well, I believe, is the “trinity”.

Now that I have explained (and - I think - I did so sufficiently) your inquiry to me about John 9, I’ve no problem with hearing your side.

You didn’t even understand the verse, let alone explain it sufficiently, you are going off on irrelevant tangents on why they kicked him out, we know they accused him of sin, that is mentioned clearly, that’s not what I’m arguing about. The fact remains they did not believe him that he was blind

 

[WatchfulPilgrim]

You still have not provided one single verse, WatchfulPilgrim, which would condemn violent defense of others when the circumstances provide no other alternative.

Jeremy

What do you mean by “violent defense of others”? Is it possible that someone has invented this supposed difference (what appears to me to be an invented loophole) to support violence? As if the “others” are somehow not the “enemy” Jesus spoke about when He said we ought to “love your enemies”? When He says 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; and he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust. do you mean to tell me that this does not apply to me when someone breaks into my house and holds a gun to my daughter’s head? Is this man not my enemy b/c he is not holding the gun to my head? Who is my brother? If I learn of my neighbor down the street being held at gunpoint, is the man holding him hostage not my enemy b/c the gun is not pointed at MY head? Who is my neighbor that I should love? Think of the story of the good Samaritan. We must love all people. Anyone who inflicts suffering on those I love is my enemy. Yes, especially those who persecute the “innocent” (not that there truly are any innocents. Jesus alone is innocent. All life is sacred. “Whatsoever you do to the least of my people you do unto me”. IMO, that include the perpetrator.) If we love all people, then those who inflict suffering are the “enemy” (but no less deserving of our love). If I lived during WWII, I would have seen Hitler as the enemy, and all who followed him in his atrocious regime - b/c they don’t follow God’s command to love. Hitler and his regime become my enemy.

I know this answer flies in the face of reason, b/c the next question is: How would we love Hitler and his regime? And how would loving them have stopped the holocaust? That is where faith comes in. Sometimes there will be people who are willing to fight. God may use them to bring about His will, via fighting. Or, if everyone were to obey this command to love the enemy, God may protect His people via some other means - maybe even through conversion of the enemy. The Israelites overcame what seemed like insurmountable obstacles when they were faithful. And we’ve no need to fear the extermination of Christ’s Holy Church, b/c He promised the gates of Hell would never prevail against it.

Does that answer you sufficiently? I know I did a lousy job answering the questions when I was angry. I am trying to answer you more prayerfully.

Peace~

 

[WatchfulPilgrim]

There are different versions of the KJV it appears:

bible.crosswalk.com/OnlineStudyBible/bible.cgi?passage=John+9:18&version=av

That’s one of them, in either case, they all say pretty much the same thing, my concern is regarding that ‘until’.

Precisely, so they asked the parents if the man was blind, and the parents said in some way or the other that he was blind. And the Bible says they did not believe the blind man UNTIL they spoke to the parents:

But the Jews did not believe concerning him, that he had been blind, and received his sight, until they called the parents of him that had received his sight.

The contradiction lies blatantly obvious in the fact that the Bible says they didn’t believe him until they talked to the parents, yet they drove him out, look carefully here:

It’s clear that they believe the man is a sinner, the believe that Jesus is a sinner, they don’t believe the man, and they don’t believe Jesus is from God, what is so extremely difficult to understand? The simple fact is, that they don’t believe HIM, yet John 9:18 says they only believed him after they spoke to the parents.

I can’t see how you CAN’T see that after they accuse him of sin, insult Jesus and kick him out that you can think they actually believe him.

Yes they cast him out because of that, that’s not what I’m disagreeing with, but the fact still remains they think he was lying, they do not believe he was blind at all, yet John 9:18 says they did not believe him UNTIL they spoke to the parents.

You didn’t even understand the verse, let alone explain it sufficiently, you are going off on irrelevant tangents on why they kicked him out, we know they accused him of sin, that is mentioned clearly, that’s not what I’m arguing about. The fact remains they did not believe him that he was blind

Harmony, forgive my ignorance. Where in these passages does it say that they didn’t believe he was blind? Jesus performed other miracles too which *they believed did *happen, but simply didn’t attribute it to God’s work. They accused Jesus of casting out the devils with the devil’s power, no?

There are many people, even today, who witness God’s miracles and reject Him. Indeed, there are many who will look at magnificent creation and attribute it to chance and totally dismiss the possibility of the existence of God. It showed their lack of faith. Remember the story of Lazarus and the poor man? “They have Moses and the prophets”. God knows that some people will not believe no matter what - whether they can confirm a miracle or not.

Do you not see that in this passage? I think the a(A)uthor is trying to show that even though it was proven to the Jews that this man was born blind, they still would not believe (not that he was blind, but rather…) that Jesus was Who He claimed to be.

 

[WatchfulPilgrim]

Btw, the disgusting irony here is that I am a terrible non-resistant. I believe it is Christ’s doctrine, and I confess I am not very good at living it out at present Not that I’ve killed anyone, but I’m far from meek, in case you didn’t notice

 

[Harmony1988]

Harmony, forgive my ignorance. Where in these passages does it say that they didn’t believe he was blind? Jesus performed other miracles too which *they believed did *happen, but simply didn’t attribute it to God’s work. They accused Jesus of casting out the devils with the devil’s power, no?

Them kicking him out, calling him a sinner, and Jesus a sinner is not evidence enough? You’re right about them recognizing Jesus’ miracles later, but this was later when they actually started seeing more and then they attributed it to Satan, but at this stage, it wasn’t the case, they were asking “where did he come from” - “We are disciples of Moses”

Yes, they did not believe he was blind, the whole tone of this passage indicates that they believed this man was a ‘disciple of Jesus’ and were trying to fool them into following Jesus’ ways. Infact this same ‘until’ is found in other parts of the Bible,

“1 Cor. 15:25, “For He must reign until He has put all His enemies under His feet.””

So does Christ stop reigning after he put all his enemies under his feet? We know from elsewhere in the Bible he will always continue to reign.

In the same way, this use of the word until in many passages in the Bible does not refer to a change in condition. The Jews did not believe him initially, nor did they believe the parents when they spoke to the, nor did they ever believe him as indicated in the passage, there is no change in condition.

Other places in the Bible with this interesting use of ‘until’ which actually DOES indicate a change in condition:

“Rev. 7:3, “Do not harm the earth or the sea or the trees, until we have sealed the bond-servants of our God on their foreheads.””

The harm was to be brought unto the earth etc. after the seal was put on the servants of God.

You’ll be interested to know unlike in english, the greeks have many different words for this ‘until’ which removes the confusion in greek, but in english, until is just until:

891 // acri // achri // akh’-ree // or
// acriv // achris // akh’-rece //

akin to 206 (through the idea of a terminus); prep/conj

AV - until 14, unto 13, till 3, till + 3739 + 302 3, until + 3739 2,
while + 3739 2, even to 2, misc 7; 49

1. until, unto, etc.

3755 // otou // hotou // ** hot’-oo** //

for the genitive case of 3748 (as adverb); pron

AV - not tr 6; 6

1. while, until

It’s the same ‘until’, but different words used in Greek.

apostolic-churches.net/bible/strongs/ref/?stgh=greek&stnm=3755

There are many people, even today, who witness God’s miracles and reject Him. Indeed, there are many who will look at magnificent creation and attribute it to chance and totally dismiss the possibility of the existence of God. It showed their lack of faith. Remember the story of Lazarus and the poor man? “They have Moses and the prophets”. God knows that some people will not believe no matter what - whether they can confirm a miracle or not.

No one is debating this point, I agree, this is not the issue in question.

 

[Harmony1988]

I’m afraid this is seen as a contradiction because a bunch of atheists known for picking up contradictions has also pointed this out:

skepticsannotatedbible.com/jn/9.html

Of course, they aren’t aware of the Greek, but I trust they can read pretty well as they have indeed analyzed Bible passages quite well.

concordance.biblos.com/eo_s.htm

That is the use of the word ‘heos’ - ‘until’ in the Bible, you will find that’s the same ‘until’ used in Matthew 1:25 (Mary’s virginity) and John 9:18

 

[WatchfulPilgrim]

I’m afraid this is seen as a contradiction because a bunch of atheists known for picking up contradictions has also pointed this out:

skepticsannotatedbible.com/jn/9.html

Of course, they aren’t aware of the Greek, but I trust they can read pretty well as they have indeed analyzed Bible passages quite well.

concordance.biblos.com/eo_s.htm

That is the use of the word ‘heos’ - ‘until’ in the Bible, you will find that’s the same ‘until’ used in Matthew 1:25 (Mary’s virginity) and John 9:18

No pun intended, but UNTIL you told me the use of the word until could make this passage (seem) contradictory, I did not see any apparent contradiction. Perhaps you now ‘see’ this ‘contradiction’ b/c you have conversed with a few atheists?

Regardless of the use of the word ‘until’, it doesn’t change the essense of the story; that the Jews here were hard-hearted and stubborn and would not recognize Jesus for Who He claimed to be or in this case, Who the blind mand claimed He must be. The use of the word ‘until’ is seen as a loophole for atheists who want to discredit Christianity. This is precisely why I am cautious to pick apart verses with people who do not look at the NT as a whole to help them understand. People like to dissect and twist the Scriptures to make them conform to their personal views. I’m not saying you are doing this, but I think it is evident that the atheists you’ve read about or spoke to are, and I think it is possible that some Catholic, at some point in time, did this same thing to justify Christian’s involvement in combat.

I am aware of the ‘until’ “contradiction” in the passage about Mary having children. I think it might be a good argument for Mary’s supposed perpetual virginity if one does not take into account the passages about Jesus’s brothers and sisters. And I am also aware of the “close relatives” argument which, IMO, is a weak one. Regardless, I don’t see what bearing believing in Mary’s supposed perpetual virginity has on my salvation, so I really don’t care to get off topic in discussing that.

 

[Harmony1988]

No pun intended, but UNTIL you told me the use of the word until could make this passage (seem) contradictory, I did not see any apparent contradiction. Perhaps you now ‘see’ this ‘contradiction’ b/c you have conversed with a few atheists?

I have not “conversed” with them, I picked the site up when I was doing a google search by adding in some key terms, and it came up. So much for that theory, my point was, that other people see this contradiction too, atheist or not it’s irrelevant, I mentioned that so perhaps you didn’t dig into it and then claim I’m an atheist or anything. The point is, it’s a contradiction in english and the atheist group who has devoted their time to pick up contradictions has picked it up. I do not oppose them for it, I actually welcome people who do pick up contradictions or so called contradictions so I and others can analyze it further and be in the position to answer people later when asked in real life.

You will not have that liberty of being able to answer this apparent contradiction.

Regardless of the use of the word ‘until’, it doesn’t change the essense of the story;

Lol, this sounds like ‘dismissing’ to me. There is no ‘regardless’ the word until has different usages, full stop.

that the Jews here were hard-hearted and stubborn and would not recognize Jesus for Who He claimed to be or in this case, Who the blind mand claimed He must be. The use of the word ‘until’ is seen as a loophole for atheists who want to discredit Christianity. This is precisely why I am cautious to pick apart verses with people who do not look at the NT as a whole to help them understand. People like to dissect and twist the Scriptures to make them conform to their personal views. I’m not saying you are doing this, but I think it is evident that the atheists you’ve read about or spoke to are, and I think it is possible that some Catholic, at some point in time, did this same thing to justify Christian’s involvement in combat.

Yada yada yada, I’m not interested in a paraphrase of the story nor your opinion on why I picked certain sites, or loopholes for atheists. People like to dissect scriptures because it’s called analytical thinking, and necessary for intellect and also spirituality. Do not think you can read the Bible like a bed-time book with no concern whatsoever for their original languages, it’s not a 20th century “new age self healing book”.

I do not believe you dissect or twist scriptures either, you do not read well enough into is my concern. You dismiss any evidence, either because you are too lazy to read it or do not want to accept it.

I am aware of the ‘until’ “contradiction” in the passage about Mary having children. I think it might be a good argument for Mary’s supposed perpetual virginity if one does not take into account the passages about Jesus’s brothers and sisters. And I am also aware of the “close relatives” argument which, IMO, is a weak one. Regardless, I don’t see what bearing believing in Mary’s supposed perpetual virginity has on my salvation, so I really don’t care to get off topic in discussing that.

More redundant points, if you don’t care and expressly state you don’t care, why bring it up? I’m not going into the “brethren” issue, I’m sure you are smart enough to use google search.

 

[WatchfulPilgrim]

I’d also like to add that I’ve seen many people try to explain away the passages in Corinthians about head-covering by using the Greek. They try to show that the covering spoken of is the woman’s hair and not an additional covering. I don’t know what kind of consideration you’ve ever given those passages, but there has never been a question to me what those passages say, nor have there been in almost 2000 years of Christian practice. It is just another example of people looking for loopholes.

Some people treat Scripture as if it were a dead letter; as if God could not have preserved it in a way which made it understandable without extensive knowledge of Greek, Hebrew, etc…, or only interpretable to a class of people given the charism of interpretation.

I don’t believe our times are any different than Jesus’ time. Jesus’s message was hidden to the Scribes and Pharisees and understood by the most simple of people. They may not have understood the chemistry behind it, but they understood what elements comprised it. They knew what being a follower of Christ entailed without needing to know the ‘how’ behind it all - like ‘transubstantiation’ for example, or ‘indulgences’.

In John 6 many people no longer walked with Jesus but the Apostles remained. Did they stay with Jesus b/c they fully understood what it meant to eat His flesh and drink His blood? Of course not. But they trusted Jesus despite His “hard saying”. Those passages are not JUST about the Eucharist, but are also about faith. It said

Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not

For 2000 years man has been reflecting on the great Christian mysteries. I think through the reflection we may have come to understand some deep truths about the faith, but also many theories. And most people focus too much on these things and almost miss the essense of Christianity entirely - and then follows the division caused by all the disagreement.

This is why, unlike you, I don’t find it necessary to pick apart passages, consult the Greek and the opinions of other people. Often when people do this it is to try to find some way out of accepting the text with it’s intended meaning. That me be viewed by you as ignorance. Jesus said, “I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes.” " “I tell you this truth: unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.” This does not mean we should be ignorant, but that we should have an open and trusting disposition toward God. I believe that when Scripture is read with this disposition, it is not difficult to understand. And those things that remain mysterious to us now, will one day be revealed to us in Heaven. But I simply don’t believe that our salvation rests in fully understanding the mystery.

I know this is getting a little o.t., but I thought I’d throw my thoughts on this out here as they do pertain to the method we are using to discuss interpretation.

Peace~

 

[WatchfulPilgrim]

So much for that theory

Lol, this sounds like ‘dismissing’ to me.

Yada yada yada

, I’m not interested in… your opinion on why I picked certain sites, or loopholes for atheists.

You dismiss any evidence, either because you are too lazy to read it or do not want to accept it.

K, well, you asked for my p.o.v. and I gave it. I can say the same thing for you: “too lazy”, “don’t want to accept it”. And all the ‘yada yada’’, calling my opinion ‘theory’, and you’re supposedly ‘not interested’ in my opinion. It’s evident that you don’t want a civil discussion. And remember please, that YOU, EXPRESSLY ASKED ME for my opinion, did you not??? So youdon’t like my opinion. Does that shock you?

It looks to me like you invited me back to take a few more jabs. It really doesn’t matter to me if you accept my position or not b/c I was not very optimistic that you would. I can pray that I’ve left you a seed of truth and you can do the same for me.

Now, since, as you say, you are not interested in my opinions, please do me a favor and stop asking me questions. I’ve already told you I am not interested in the Catholic p.o.v. anymore, so I’m not hanging around here for that. That ought to deter you automatically from wanted to discuss anything with me. Besides, I prefer to take my Lord’s advice as recorded in His Word, and not invite you back into my home. I will pray for your enlightenment.

Have a swell day~

 

[jemfinch]

What do you mean by “violent defense of others”?

I mean exactly that: the use of force in defense of others incapable of defending themselves against an aggressor.

Is it possible that someone has invented this supposed difference (what appears to me to be an invented loophole) to support violence?

What supposed difference? Clearly (I hope) you can see that there is a distinction to be made between “defending one’s self” and “defending others,” do you not? The former is opposed by Christ’s teachings in Scripture; the latter, I claim, is not. Do you have a Scripture which opposes the latter?

As if the “others” are somehow not the “enemy” Jesus spoke about when He said we ought to “love your enemies”?

I am talking about defense of others: weak and helpless children, for instance. They are definitely not the enemy.

When He says 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; and he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust. do you mean to tell me that this does not apply to me when someone breaks into my house and holds a gun to my daughter’s head?

Did God not love Onan? Did Jesus not love the moneychangers in the temple when He overturned their tables and chased them out with (at least the threat, if not the application of) a whip? If God’s love stands unabated despite his execution of violence against these people (and these are but a few of the examples through Scripture of God using violence against people) why do you consider it so impossible that a human could both love his enemy and at the same time use force to defend the weak and helpless against that enemy?

We must love all people.

Many loving parents strike the children violently in order to train them: they call this “spanking” and it has a long history of producing good children, even if today most experts (and many non-experts such as myself) do not believe it’s the most effective way to do so. Does this violence of parents against children show that those parents don’t love their children? Of course not. They spank because they love.

Likewise, I provided a Scriptural proof of such “violent defense rooted in love for the aggressor” in an earlier post of mine to which you never responded: imagine a man intent on raping and torturing my daughter. Would it cause her to stumble? Undoubtedly. Therefore, according to Christ’s claim that, “whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea,” my violent defense of my daugher in such a case would be entirely justified by my love for her assailant, for in preventing him from causing her to stumble, I would be saving him from a fate worse than death. What do you offer against this argument?

I know this answer flies in the face of reason

It seems like a non sequitur. I asked a very specific question: provide a passage of Scripture which condemns the forceful defense of the weak and helpless against a violent aggressor. I don’t really see how your post answered that question.

The Israelites overcame what seemed like insurmountable obstacles when they were faithful.

And the vast majority of the time, their faithfulness was expressed in their willingness to fight, you must admit.

Does that answer you sufficiently? I know I did a lousy job answering the questions when I was angry. I am trying to answer you more prayerfully.

It does not seem to answer the actual question I asked. All Scripture you have provided seems to argue against self-defense, while none seems to argue against defense of others against violent aggressors. I want you to show Scriptural support for the latter.

Personally, I don’t care if you think fighting in war is wrong for a Christian to do, and you refuse to do it. That’s not important to me: if you want to be a pacifist from war, that’s your prerogative: many Christians historically would refuse to fight in wars. My issue is when you say you would not defend your family against a violent aggressor intent on harming them. I see nothing in Scripture to oppose such defense, and further, I see several examples, in Christ’s ministry and in the Old Testament, which would justify such defense (and even make it obligatory). That’s what I need to see you defend Scripturally and with references to the early Church fathers, but I do not believe you will find it.

Jeremy

 

[pnewton]

I know this answer flies in the face of reason, b/c the next question is: How would we love Hitler and his regime? And how would loving them have stopped the holocaust? That is where faith comes in. Sometimes there will be people who are willing to fight. God may use them to bring about His will, via fighting. Or, if everyone were to obey this command to love the enemy, God may protect His people via some other means - maybe even through conversion of the enemy.

He may protect them through other means. That means usually is other people. In this case, those who were willing to fight evil with force and lay down their life to stop this madness. Appeasement did not work and no conversion of soul happened. This is a historical fact and millions of Jews died to test the theory of pacifism in this situation.

 

[WatchfulPilgrim]

I am talking about defense of others: weak and helpless children, for instance. They are definitely not the enemy.

Never said they were.

Did God not love Onan?

We are not discussing God taking a life - He has that right.

Did Jesus not love the moneychangers in the temple when He overturned their tables and chased them out with (at least the threat, if not the application of) a whip?

Chasing off someone with a whip is not killing them - not even close.

Many loving parents strike the children violently in order to train them: they call this “spanking” and it has a long history of producing good children, even if today most experts (and many non-experts such as myself) do not believe it’s the most effective way to do so. Does this violence of parents against children show that those parents don’t love their children? Of course not. They spank because they love.

Likewise, I provided a Scriptural proof of such “violent defense rooted in love for the aggressor” in an earlier post of mine to which you never responded: imagine a man intent on raping and torturing my daughter. Would it cause her to stumble? Undoubtedly.

No, not necessarily. Think:

"But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness

Therefore, according to Christ’s claim that, “whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea,” my violent defense of my daugher in such a case would be entirely justified by my love for her assailant, for in preventing him from causing her to stumble, I would be saving him from a fate worse than death. What do you offer against this argument? If someone stumbles over a teaching of Christ it isn’t b/c the teaching is wrong. I train my children in Christ’s ways. They are well-informed that I will not take a life to spare theirs, and I pray they would do likewise if it were I they wanted to protect.

And the vast majority of the time, their faithfulness was expressed in their willingness to fight, you must admit.

Surely. But God does not allow killing in His name in the NT as I’ve already demonstrated. You may disagree if you wish, it changes nothing.

It does not seem to answer the actual question I asked. All Scripture you have provided seems to argue against self-defense, while none seems to argue against defense of others against violent aggressors. I want you to show Scriptural support for the latter.

My answer is not explicit in Scripture, but I showed you Scriptures which the examples of Jesus to more than adequately answer the question. I am run out of ways to say it. It’s as simple as this, really:

Jesus did not defend, not only Himself, but anyone else either, and there was ample opportunity in His time for doing so. Couple this obvious fact with His own very words about loving the enemy and there’s no room for doubt that Jesus taught and lived non-resistance. Spanking can hardly be compared to killing. I do believe in correction, but not lethal correction which is not correction at all. In killing you leave no opportunity for anything to be corrected and in fact add to the problem.

I also think the parallel I’ve drawn to abortion is an applicable one. Another abortion parallel: If a woman’s life is at risk (a rare thing, yes, but not impossible) during pregnancy it is still not permissable to kill the baby. Gianna Bolla is a prime example of a woman who understood this fact. “Innocent” or not, we do not have the right to decide when life ends. Also, a Ceasar or a Hitler still sin by commiting suicide.

So, although I can not find you a Scripture which expressly states: “Thou shalt not kill someone else’s enemy”, you likewise can not find one that expressly states that one can. But an honest look at what Jesus did say about enemies and a look at His example clearly reveal His non-resistance, *not just *in the matter of self-defense. And I still fail to see why it is not understood that just b/c someone doesn’t threaten me directly that they are not really my enemy. Do you think men would have fought in WWII if they didn’t consider Hitler the enemy???

And cracking a whip at the temple is not even comparable to killing someone. For all we know he may have done it to make a lot of noise and get attention. I’ve scooted my pets out of my house with my foot a few times. There is absolutely no indication that Jesus hurt anyone with the whip, so we cannot assume He did, and I am absolutely certain Jesus did not kill anyone with it. At most, His action might be seen as a corrective one, but certainly does not support killing in Christ’s name.

Personally, I don’t care if you think fighting in war is wrong for a Christian to do, and you refuse to do it. That’s not important to me: if you want to be a pacifist from war, that’s your prerogative: many Christians historically would refuse to fight in wars. My issue is when you say you would not defend your family against a violent aggressor intent on harming them.

My family, some other country, it makes no difference to me except that I have closer ties and relations with my family. But we are all brothers and sisters.

I need to see you defend Scripturally and with references to the early Church fathers.

I don’t know why you think the family situation you presented is any different than the issue of war. It either case you would be defending another human being when YOU YOURSELF were not originally the one under attack. The ECFs had plenty to say about that as I’ve already indicated, and for your information I will post a few once again:

 

[WatchfulPilgrim]

Polycarp to the Philippians: “not rendering evil for evil, or railing for railing, or blow for blow, or cursing for cursing.”

Justin Martyr: “we . . . have . . . changed our warlike weapons, our swords into plowshares, and our spears into implements of tillage.”

Athenagoras (not sure he’s an ECF though…): “We have learned not only not to return blow for blow, nor to go to law with those who plunder and rob us, but to those who smite us on the one side of the face to offer the other side also, and to those who take away our coat to give likewise our cloak.”

Tertullian: “Shall it be held lawful,to make an occupation of the sword when the Lord proclaims that he who uses the sword shall perish by the sword? And shall the son of peace take part in the battle when it does not become him even to sue at law?”

Origen: “We have come in accordance with the counsels of Jesus to cut down our warlike and arrogant swords of argument into plowshares, and we convert into sickles the spears we formerly used in fighting. For we no longer take sword against a nation, nor do we learn anymore to make war, having become sons of peace for the sake of Jesus, who is our leader.”
and: “For the men of God are assuredly the salt of the earth; they preserve the order of the world; and society is held together as long as the salt is uncorrupted. . . . And as we by our prayers vanquish all demons who stir up war, and lead to the violation of oaths, and disturb the peace, we in this way are much more helpful to the kings, than those who go into the fields to fight for them. . . . We do not indeed fight under him [the emperor], although he requires it; but** we ‘fight’ on his behalf, forming a special ‘army’-an army of piety-by offering our prayers to God . . . Christians are benefactors of their country more than others. For they train up citizens, and inculcate piety to the Supreme Being; and they promote those whose lives in the smallest cities have been good and worthy, to a divine and heavenly city. . . . And it is not for the purpose of escaping public duties that Christians decline public offices, but that they may reserve themselves for a divine and more necessary service in the church of God-for the salvation of men**.”

Cyprian: “if a murder is committed privately it is a crime, but if it happens with state authority, courage is the name for it” (Christians) "are not allowed to kill, but they must be ready to be put to death themselves." “**it is not permitted the guiltless to put even the guilty to death.” **
There may be more but this is a good sampling I think.

 

[WatchfulPilgrim]

Although I think those ECF quotes support a non-resistant or pacifist position, I realize there is disagreement among ECF writings. And certainly history is overwhelmingly in support of your position, but this in no way proves the position is a correct one. So at best, all we can prove with the ECFs is that there was disagreement, and at some point in history, favor rests on your side.

Another thought related. I think you agree that there have been Catholic saints that were non-resistants or pacifists. If they are not wrong to take that position, why am I? Is it b/c I condemn the other p.o.v.? Can we honestly look at a St. Francis of Assisi and say that he would not have been opposed to it? Can we honestly look at any Catholic examples of pacifism/non-resistance and say they believed both? How is that possible? How would it be possible to live non-resistant and still accept just war theory? It seems obvious to me that one cannot live non-resistantly; believing that all killing in the name of Christ is wrong - while also accepting that it is somehow okay for other Christians to kill in the name of Christ? How can it be wrong for them and right for others? If it is wrong for me it is wrong b/c it is my conviction that Christians cannot kill. That includes ALL Christians, no? As soon as the conscientous objector makes provision for other Christians to kill he no longer has grounds to object! It’s illogical that both can be right. The Church contradicts its own theory by elevating non-resistants/pacifists. In essence, by doing so, the CC is saying that it is a matter of conscience, which to me is compromise with an untruth, b/c either it is wrong to kill or it is not. It says it is not wrong for a Christian to kill and then elevates those who wrongly oppose killing in Christ’s name. This simply doesn’t make sense. It is not a gray issue. Either Christians killing human beings is permissable under certain circumstances or it is not, and whoever opposes the truth is in error. I see no room in Jesus’s words or example for subjectivism.

 

[jemfinch]

Never said they were.

You seemed to misunderstand what I was asking, though.

We are not discussing God taking a life - He has that right.

You’re right, we’re not discussing that. You seem to be bringing it up here only to distract from the point I was making, rather than answer it.

God loved Onan, and God killed Onan. Jesus loved the moneychangers in the temple, and yet He ran them off with violence or the threat of violence. These examples prove that at least in some cases, love can coincide with violence toward someone. Do you argue that only God can at the same time love someone and be violent toward him? If so, on what basis?

Chasing off someone with a whip is not killing them - not even close.

But it is violence.

No, not necessarily.

You find me a real survivor of rape and torture who hasn’t stumbled because of the heinous acts done to them. Christ did it (at least with respect to the torture aspect) but He was an adult, and God at the same time: one of our responsibilities as parents is to guard our children from the near occasion of sin, and an assailant intent on raping and torturing our children is very much the near occasion of sin.

If someone stumbles over a teaching of Christ it isn’t b/c the teaching is wrong. I train my children in Christ’s ways. They are well-informed that I will not take a life to spare theirs, and I pray they would do likewise if it were I they wanted to protect.

If I understand you correctly, you’re saying, “My children would not stumble if they were raped and tortured by an aggressor because they understand that Christ’s teaching is to ‘resist not evil.’” Apart from demanding an unreasonable emotional fortitude from your children, it simply begs the question: you don’t need to answer my question because your children know “Christ’s teaching.”

Let me make my argument clear so you can tell me exactly which premise you disagree with:

P1. Rape and torture cause children to stumble.
C1. An aggressor who rapes and tortures would cause children to stumble.
P2. An aggressor who causes children to stumble would be better off dead.
P3. Love is expressed in a desire to do what’s best for a person.
C2. Love for an aggressor seeking to rape and torture children could be expressed in violently preventing such an aggressor from raping and torturing children.

Furthermore, I’m not talking solely about taking a life to defend others, I’m talking about all violent defense of others, which you seem to oppose. It seems to me that your previous posts in this thread contend that you would not raise a finger against an assailant intent on raping and torturing children: do I understand you correctly?

Surely. But God does not allow killing in His name in the NT as I’ve already demonstrated.

No one’s arguing that He did. All I’m arguing is that God permits violent defense of others against aggressors.

My answer is not explicit in Scripture,

It’s good that you admit this.

but I showed you Scriptures which the examples of Jesus to more than adequately answer the question.

No, you really haven’t.

It’s as simple as this, really:

Jesus did not defend, not only Himself, but anyone else either, and there was ample opportunity in His time for doing so.

There is no example of Scripture where Jesus didn’t defend someone against an aggressor. If there were, you might have a reasonable case, but there is not. The closest example you can cite is the woman caught in adultery in John 8, but in this case, Jesus did defend her: He did so by words and argument rather than violence. This does not further your case or contradict mine: I freely admit that if one can deter a violent aggressor by argument rather than by force, one should do so.

Couple this obvious fact with His own very words about loving the enemy and there’s no room for doubt that Jesus taught and lived non-resistance.

I’ve already refuted that argument, and you’ve dodged it. Love for one’s enemy can be expressed in the prevention of that enemy’s continued sin, by force if necessary. Christ said in no uncertain terms that a person who causes children to stumble would be better off dead. Therefore, if I see someone engaging in actions which history has shown to cause children to stumble, I would be justified by my love for that person in preventing that person from doing so.

Spanking can hardly be compared to killing.

I was not comparing it to killing: that’s just a rhetorical dodge on your part. I was offering it as an example of violence committed in love of those against whom the violence is inflicted. You seem to be claiming that violence can never be inflicted in love, and spanking offers a counter-example of your claim.

I do believe in correction, but not lethal correction which is not correction at all.

Maybe I’m misunderstanding you, then. Do you believe in the violent defense of the weak and helpless against aggressors if such defense only harms and does not kill the aggressor? In other words, may I non-lethally shoot someone who invades my home?

To Be Continued…

 

[jemfinch]

In killing you leave no opportunity for anything to be corrected and in fact add to the problem.

As has always been the case, I’m not arguing solely about killing. You seem to be overly restricting my argument to make your defense easier.

I also think the parallel I’ve drawn to abortion is an applicable one.

It’s not. A baby is not an aggressor, nor is the child intent on harming anyone.

Another abortion parallel: If a woman’s life is at risk (a rare thing, yes, but not impossible) during pregnancy it is still not permissable to kill the baby.

Irrelevant. The baby is not an aggressor, and is not intent on harming anyone.

So, although I can not find you a Scripture which expressly states: “Thou shalt not kill someone else’s enemy”, you likewise can not find one that expressly states that one can.

I have shown an Old Testament passage which indicates the moral obligation of Jews to come to the defense of a woman crying for help. I have shown a New Testament passage in which Christ implicitly recognizes as justified a man’s defense of his household possessions.

But an honest look at what Jesus did say about enemies and a look at His example clearly reveal His non-resistance, *not just *in the matter of self-defense.

No, you’ve failed to make that point. There is not one example you can show where Christ let someone die or be tortured by an aggressor and refused to help that person.

And I still fail to see why it is not understood that just b/c someone doesn’t threaten me directly that they are not really my enemy.

I don’t understand the connection to my argument here, so I can’t really respond to it.

And cracking a whip at the temple is not even comparable to killing someone.

It doesn’t need to. Stop applying limits to my argument that I did not see fit to apply. I’m not talking only about killing, but about all violent defense of the weak and helpless. Unless you recognize that the violent defense of the weak and helpless is justified, then intellectual honesty demands that you argue against all of my argument and not just parts of it.

For all we know he may have done it to make a lot of noise and get attention.

An unlikely presumption on your part. The whip which Christ fashioned was not a noisemaking whip. Plus, if Christ used only the threat of violence without the intention to administer it, you must deal with the duplicity of such action.

I’ve scooted my pets out of my house with my foot a few times. There is absolutely no indication that Jesus hurt anyone with the whip, so we cannot assume He did,

On the contrary, if there is no evidence to the contrary, we should assume that the weapon Christ fashioned was used as an actual weapon. If the Bible recorded an example where Christ put shoes on, we should assume that He intended to take a walk unless we read otherwise. Likewise, when the Bible records an example where Christ fashioned a violent weapon, we should assume that He intended to use it unless we read otherwise. We do not read otherwise.

and I am absolutely certain Jesus did not kill anyone with it.

Oh, were you there? Or has God shown you the instant replay? Apart from these two possibilities, how can you be “absolutely certain” without claiming your own infallibility?

At most, His action might be seen as a corrective one, but certainly does not support killing in Christ’s name.

You’re not arguing against my actual claim, but a limited form of it.

I don’t know why you think the family situation you presented is any different than the issue of war.

I’ll spell it out: in defense of one’s family against an aggressor, a man is directly acting to directly prevent a direct evil from occurring. Whatever injury is inflicted is inflicted on an actual aggressor actually intent on inflicting actual harm on actual helpless victims. In war, on the other hand, a man is indirectly acting to indirectly prevent an indirect evil from occurring. Injury inflicted is inflicted on a representative of an aggressor who may himself be intent on not inflicted harm on helpless people.

The ECFs had plenty to say about that as I’ve already indicated

The ECFs opposed war, and given the political climate of the time, they were almost certainly opposing unjust wars. No ECF quote you have provided has supported pacifism in the context of defending the weak and helpless against a direct aggressor.

Jeremy

 

[jemfinch]

Polycarp to the Philippians: “not rendering evil for evil, or railing for railing, or blow for blow, or cursing for cursing.”

Please post the full context so we can see if it applies to the defense of the weak and helpless against aggressors.

Justin Martyr: “we . . . have . . . changed our warlike weapons, our swords into plowshares, and our spears into implements of tillage.”

Full context, please.

Athenagoras (not sure he’s an ECF though…): “We have learned not only not to return blow for blow, nor to go to law with those who plunder and rob us, but to those who smite us on the one side of the face to offer the other side also, and to those who take away our coat to give likewise our cloak.”

He’s clearly quoting Christ about self defense. Nothing in this excerpt indicates that he’s generalized to defense of the weak against aggressors. Perhaps you can quote more context to indicate that.

Tertullian: “Shall it be held lawful,to make an occupation of the sword when the Lord proclaims that he who uses the sword shall perish by the sword? And shall the son of peace take part in the battle when it does not become him even to sue at law?”

“Occupation of the sword” and “take part in battle” clearly indicate that he’s speaking of war (and likely unjust war, given the political climate of the time). Nothing indicates that this argues against the case of defending the weak and helpless against an aggressor.

Origen: “We have come in accordance with the counsels of Jesus to cut down our warlike and arrogant swords of argument into plowshares, and we convert into sickles the spears we formerly used in fighting. For we no longer take sword against a nation, nor do we learn anymore to make war, having become sons of peace for the sake of Jesus, who is our leader.”

Against war, not home defense, just like the other Origen quote you provided.

Cyprian: “if a murder is committed privately it is a crime, but if it happens with state authority, courage is the name for it” (Christians) "are not allowed to kill, but they must be ready to be put to death themselves." “**it is not permitted the guiltless to put even the guilty to death.” **
There may be more but this is a good sampling I think.

Sounds like it’s talking about war again. Can you provide no ECF link which clearly defends your claim that violent defense of the weak and helpless is impermissible?

Jeremy

 

[Harmony1988]

K, well, you asked for my p.o.v. and I gave it. I can say the same thing for you: “too lazy”, “don’t want to accept it”. And all the ‘yada yada’’, calling my opinion ‘theory’, and you’re supposedly ‘not interested’ in my opinion. It’s evident that you don’t want a civil discussion. And remember please, that YOU, EXPRESSLY ASKED ME for my opinion, did you not??? So youdon’t like my opinion. Does that shock you?

It looks to me like you invited me back to take a few more jabs. It really doesn’t matter to me if you accept my position or not b/c I was not very optimistic that you would. I can pray that I’ve left you a seed of truth and you can do the same for me.

Now, since, as you say, you are not interested in my opinions, please do me a favor and stop asking me questions. I’ve already told you I am not interested in the Catholic p.o.v. anymore, so I’m not hanging around here for that. That ought to deter you automatically from wanted to discuss anything with me. Besides, I prefer to take my Lord’s advice as recorded in His Word, and not invite you back into my home. I will pray for your enlightenment.

Have a swell day~

Yes I wanted your point of view, but also some evidence (this goes without saying) if you were going to make claims. I’m not interested in summaries of scripture, that I can find anywhere on the internet.

Yada yada yada goes for anything without evidence, ‘theories’ such as that I was ‘conversing’ with atheists and how I subsequently developed my own view. That is where all the yada yada yada applies to.

Yes, pray for me for my enlightenment, and what home are you exactly talking about? I haven’t exactly made rounds anywhere in your home in real life or on the internet, you are after all the one who is still here despite all the times you’ve supposedly ‘gone for good’. No one wants you to go, we still want to ‘enlighten’ you, oh sorry did I say that? I didn’t mean indoctrinate, I strictly meant enlighten.

I love civil discussions, but there is only so long I can go listening to opinions with claims without evidence. Scriptural evidence is welcomed, but in all seriousness, when we are debating the scripture in questions there is not much evidence you can bring in, I brought in the greek to demonstrate my point, you brought in paraphrasing and some whacky theories about the atheists.

Good luck

 

[WatchfulPilgrim]

I haven’t exactly made rounds anywhere in your home in real life or on the internet, you are after all the one who is still here despite all the times you’ve supposedly ‘gone for good’.

Yes, I am done for good with talking to you for sure, and I’d prefer to be done completely here, but it looked like Pnewton and jemfinch had a few additional questions and seemed a bit more open to civil discussion than you so I thought I’d give one last try with them. Afterall, even after I said good-bye, you still inquired, so I had hope. The least I could do is give it a last try with them.