It’s times like these that Jesus would say: “But now he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise a scrip; and he that hath not, let him sell his coat, and buy a sword.” (Luke 22:36 Douay-Rheims)Considering that the total number of moslems outnumber the total number of Catholics, it wouldn’t be a bad idea.
Jesus said to love your personal enemies, but a Crusade is against enemies of the group. Remember that the Greco-Roman culture (and thus the context of the Bible) was group-oriented (compare to America which is individual-oriented), thus the command to love your enemies addressed at individuals with no socio-political power does not preclude a group taking action to defend itself and protect ‘innocent’ civilians (in the Crusades, it was the pilgrims to the Holy Land).My God.
Yes, Let’s kill for Christ! Glory in the killing for the God who said to love you enemy! Yes! Onward!
Sarcasm end.
No comment. I thought this was a mature Christian forum.
God bless you all the same.
Sure, you can twist to fit such a nice category.Jesus said to love your personal enemies, but a Crusade is against enemies of the group. Remember that the Greco-Roman culture (and thus the context of the Bible) was group-oriented (compare to America which is individual-oriented), thus the command to love your enemies addressed at individuals with no socio-political power does not preclude a group taking action to defend itself and protect ‘innocent’ civilians (in the Crusades, it was the pilgrims to the Holy Land).
Article
Sure, you can twist to fit such a nice category.
Heck, you can twist anything to sound the way you want.
Like another thread showed, that’s simply not what the early church believed.
I’m sorry, but trying to rationalize around Christ’s command to love your enemy as merely stating that He meant to love you personal enemies is inadequate. You need to look at other verses as well, like Mt 5,39: But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.
The evil person is anyone evil, not just the personal evil person, whatever that may mean.
Also Mt 26,52: Then Jesus said to him, “Put your sword back into its place; for all who take the sword will perish by the sword”.
I mean, how, o how can one say he follows Christ - the love you enemy and do not resist the evil person and do not take the sword, and then go around slaughtering your brothers.
Also, who gave us the power to decide on the life of another? How do you know that the heretic you are about to kill wouldn’t convert and become a great saint a year from now? How can we EVEN dare to make such a judgment? Do we distrust God’s plan for all men?
Also, I’m not saying you should have injustice all around the place an tolerate it, as the article you gave argues against.
No. I’m saying none of us have a right to another man’s life, no matter how grave the circumstances. Could you imagine the early Christians taking up arms against the evil roman government to protect other innocent Christians?
Please, don’t take this as directed against you. It’s not.
God bless you.
Hello Hrvoje,Sure, you can twist to fit such a nice category.
Heck, you can twist anything to sound the way you want.
Like another thread showed, that’s simply not what the early church believed.
I’m sorry, but trying to rationalize around Christ’s command to love your enemy as merely stating that He meant to love you personal enemies is inadequate. You need to look at other verses as well, like Mt 5,39: But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.
The evil person is anyone evil, not just the personal evil person, whatever that may mean.
Also Mt 26,52: Then Jesus said to him, “Put your sword back into its place; for all who take the sword will perish by the sword”.
I mean, how, o how can one say he follows Christ - the love you enemy and do not resist the evil person and do not take the sword, and then go around slaughtering your brothers.
Also, who gave us the power to decide on the life of another? How do you know that the heretic you are about to kill wouldn’t convert and become a great saint a year from now? How can we EVEN dare to make such a judgment? Do we distrust God’s plan for all men?
Also, I’m not saying you should have injustice all around the place an tolerate it, as the article you gave argues against.
No. I’m saying none of us have a right to another man’s life, no matter how grave the circumstances. Could you imagine the early Christians taking up arms against the evil roman government to protect other innocent Christians?
Please, don’t take this as directed against you. It’s not.
God bless you.
Ok, glad you responded.
- In regards to Matthew 5:39 and 26:52, read Article 1, Article 2
- Remember that God, in the OT, directly orders warfare and killing.
- In the Early Church, Christians had no political power and, also, if they had tried to take up arms against Rome, they were heavily outnumbered. Basic military expediency would recognize that if you’re in the minority, you don’t start a war with the majority power (the Jews tried that against Rome in the 1st Century AD and look what happened).
- You’re profile says you’re Catholic, so how do you respond to St. Augustine’s ‘Just War’ theory?
Thanks for the post.Hello Hrvoje,
I know that you feel that war is wrong, but there is at times a need to defend others. Theres a necessity for “a time of war” (Ecclesiastes 3:8) because men and women have free wills they will be violent if they will to be and what should people do when these bad men start to murder their families, neighbours and fellow countrymen?
Of course everyone would prefer peace and harmony, but you cannot force people to be good, its a choice. And when they choose wrongly, against the teachings of Jesus and His Church then there are some circumstances where we must act in resonable force due to charity, what would you do if a grown man was beating a 10yr old boy intending to kill? you would stop him, but not to try would be wrong, it would be a sin of omission. Jesus always taught us to attempt to bear evil if we can, but He was addressing us as individuals, He did not say that we shouldn’t protect others. I fully know that He has only one Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, and He will guide it with His Holy Spirit and always be with it as He promised, and the gates of hell will never prevail - that implies that it (the Church) will never be wrong, but its members can be. The Crusades were a good cause that helped people who were being killed and captured for no reason other than being Catholics (aka ‘infidels’) So before you complain about the Church (which never can or will be wrong) first thank her for allowing you and countless others to keep their Christian faith, instead of being forced to convert, and live in a world that would have been completely muslim, had not Crusaders died to save people, both physically and spiritually, from the muslims at that time.
No-one denies that there were bad crusaders, who went against the Church’s teaching, so what has that got to do with the Church? wasn’t Judas an apostle also?
I don’t like violence whether it is needed or not too, but I know that it is demanded for at times.
God bless you,
your brother in Christ.
(If anyone wants to join a (non-violent) Crusade, an online evangelizing mission, then click the link in my sig. or ‘pm’ for more details)
Hehe, glad I’m with the Holy Mother Church.Sicne Hrvoje is Catholic, I don’t suppose there’s any way we could have a crusade aginst him, eh?
In regards to the layer of interpretation added by the Pharisees and other Jews, this was quite common. Even today, if you study Jewish interpretation (Midrash), you’ll see that Rabbis are quite willing to play EXTREMELY loose with the text and using, by most Christian standards, very questionable interpretive techniques. Although I strongly disagree with his views on the Bible and interpretation, Burton Visotzky’s “Reading the Book” examines Midrash and how it ‘works’. The idea of the Pharisees changing Biblical interpretation from meaning a governmental to individual orientation would not be that out of line with Midrashich methods.Ok, glad you responded.
Now, Article 1… I’ve never heard of anything like this author suggests - another layer of tradition which Jesus is refuting - not to mean that it is a priori wrong; I only state that everything I have read being commentaries on Mt 5, 39 have always linked it to the OT rule of “Eye for an eye and tooth for a tooth”, i.e. Lev 24, 20.
Here’s something from a commentary:
Many argue that Jesus taught against personal retaliation, but not governmental retaliation. According to this viewpoint, it is wrong for a follower of Jesus to retaliate personally against an enemy, but it is perfectly fine to use the governmental authorities and courts of law to punish the enemy. It must be noted, however, that even the Mosaic Law did not allow personal retaliation. An individual, to be in compliance with the Mosaic Law, was called upon to report any injury to the authorities, who would then administer punishment. This is what the Old Testament’s “eye for an eye” consisted of: governmental retaliation. Personal retaliation is not condoned under either Testament. The Old Testament, however, did condone governmental retaliation, and this is what Jesus referenced and taught against. Jesus promoted the love of enemies. Retaliation, whether it is personal or governmental, does not convey love to an enemy.
If you could give more evidence of this new layer of tradition Jesus rebuked, I would gladly investigate it, but I don’t think I can accept such a viewpoint based on 11 lines of text, while all the theologians I read have argued that Jesus institutes a new commandment here.
Concerning Article 2… Even if you sign off the verse as mere proverbial wisdom, you still have to deal with verses like
Matthew 22, 37-40: …Love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like it: Love your neighbor as yourself. All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.
Romans 13, 8-9: Owe no one anything except to love one another, for he who loves his fellowman has fulfilled the law. For all of the commandments… are all summed up in this one rule: “Love your neighbor as yourself.”
1 John 4, 7-11: Let us love one another, for love comes from God. Everyone who loves has been born of God and knows God. Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love… This is love: not that we loved God, but that he loved us… Since God so loved us, we also ought to love one another.
Luke 6, 27-28: …Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you.
1 Peter 2, 21-23: …Christ suffered for us, leaving us an example, that you should follow in his steps: … When they hurled their insults at him, he did not retaliate; when he suffered, he made no threats. Instead, he entrusted himself to him who judges justly.
… And many others which very strongly suggest a stance of perfect love - incompatible with a warlike attitude.
You can’t say: “I love as Christ loved!”, and then go on to shoot the brains out of your fellow man, who is you brother.
The second article also notes that, even it may be proverbial wisdom, it still applies as at least advice we should follow, even if it is not potentially given in an absolute form.
Some of the comparisons are silly - seeing “a poet is born and not made” side to side with “all who draw the sword will die by the sword” in weight. It is obviously (to anyone with any literary sense) not so, even if it may be “merely” proverbial wisdom.
Also, the article rebuts the very taken out of context position that another proceeding verse supports war, so, touche.
Even if we accept that there is no direct commandment against war in general, the way of Christ which is the way of Love - absolute Love - is incompatible with killing, be it in a just or unjust war, be it of personal or state matters - we should FIRST follow Christ and then the just state, and not the other way around.
If all the laws hang on those two, wouldn’t that include the judicial use of killing? Again, go back to that situation where one person is about to kill children, is it ‘love’ for the government to stand by and do nothing or is it more loving for the government to kill the perpetrator before they can strike (or to prevent them from doing so again).cont.
2) The Old Testament is not the primary base of Christian morality. The New is.
As Christ said:Love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like it: Love your neighbor as yourself. All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.
Also, the OT is much more intricate in documentation, compilation and exegesis then the NT, so we must thread carefully when trying to quote OT wars to justify modern ones, as many people did so and slaughtered thousands of our brothers and sisters.
- Well… This is a strange proposition indeed…
Imagine this conversation:
Peter: Darn it, those Jews outnumber us, when they come and whip us and beat us.
James: Well, Basic military expediency would recognize that if you’re in the minority, you don’t start a war with the majority power. So I guess we can’t wage war on them.
Peter: Darn it. Well just have to take their unjust punishments with a smile on the face.
That doesn’t sound right, does it? Or imagine the early Christians who were slaughtered by the thousands for their faith, saying:
“Oh, darn. Those romans outnumber us. I would rise up and lead a war against them, but I guess I’ll just have to give my life up for Christ and the faith this way. Oh, well.”
Perhaps I used the wrong words. What I meant was that, at the time, Christianity was not a majority force nor were they in control or in a leading position of the government, thus the question of military/political/security issues would not have been one that needed to be addressed. The Christians of the Early Church had little-to-no political or military authority, so the question of whether a government had the right to use lethal force would have been a policy they need not concern themselves with since they had no control over it anyway.No, that doesn’t sound very much in accord with the countless testimonies the martyrs left us. Remember how the apostles reacted when they were maltreated :
(Acts 5, 41) So they left the presence of the Sanhedrin, rejoicing that they had been found worthy to suffer dishonor for the sake of the name.