Pacifism
#81
(08-07-2011, 09:27 PM)SouthpawLink Wrote:
(08-04-2011, 06:00 PM)K3vinhood Wrote: I'm no pacifist, but in discussing this topic I find that many seem to think that pacifism is Christian and that killing in all situations is against Christ's commandments.

Mainly pacifists cite the words of Christ:
Quote:And Jesus said: Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness. Matthew 19:18

Then Jesus saith to him: Put up again thy sword into its place: for all that take the sword shall perish with the sword. Matthew 26:52

I really don't know how to counter this argument.

I bring up points of self-defense and protection as well as stopping evil causes that destroy the faith, but pacifists always seem to come back to this.

St. Augustine and his Bellum iustum (Just War) helps if you're trying to debate whether a war is just or not, but if a person doesn't think any war is just it doesn't help at all.

I guess I'm looking for some biblical evidence or writings from the fathers which allow for killing in certain situations.

I have a feeling this is a lot easier to find then I think, I just have no experience with this issue.

:shrug:

http://www.newadvent.org/summa/3040.htm

St. Thomas, Summa Theologiae, II-II, q. 40, a. 1 Wrote:Augustine says in a sermon on the son of the centurion (Ep. ad Marcel. cxxxviii): "If the Christian Religion forbade war altogether, those who sought salutary advice in the Gospel would rather have been counselled to cast aside their arms, and to give up soldiering altogether. On the contrary, they were told: 'Do violence to no man . . . and be content with your pay' [Lk 3:14]. If he commanded them to be content with their pay, he did not forbid soldiering." …

And as the care of the common weal is committed to those who are in authority, it is their business to watch over the common weal of the city, kingdom or province subject to them. And just as it is lawful for them to have recourse to the sword in defending that common weal against internal disturbances, when they punish evil-doers, according to the words of the Apostle (Romans 13:4): "He beareth not the sword in vain: for he is God's minister, an avenger to execute wrath upon him that doth evil"; so too, it is their business to have recourse to the sword of war in defending the common weal against external enemies. Hence it is said to those who are in authority (Psalm 81:4): “Rescue the poor: and deliver the needy out of the hand of the sinner."

And the Roman Catechism teaches: "In like manner, the soldier is guiltless who, actuated not by motives of ambition or cruelty, but by a pure desire of serving the interests of his country, takes away the life of an enemy in a just war.  Furthermore, there are on record instances of carnage executed by the special command of God. The sons of Levi, who put to death so many thousands in one day, were guilty of no sin; when the slaughter had ceased, they were addressed by Moses in these words: 'You have consecrated your hands this day to the Lord'" (part III, ch. VI; cf. Exodus 32:29).

http://www.catholicapologetics.info/thec...ifth.shtml


This.
Reply
#82
(08-07-2011, 09:26 PM)wulfrano Wrote: That's the way I learned to use the computer.  I did not have any formal schooling.  Whatever I know, I learned by asking questions.

Don't feel bad. I've been using computers for 40 years without formal training. Everything I've learned has been from friends and asking questions learned to program in BASIC with a book from the library and asking questions and I did the same when I learned to write HTML code! :)
Reply
#83
(08-07-2011, 05:39 PM)wulfrano Wrote:
(08-07-2011, 05:03 AM)jovan66102 Wrote:
(08-07-2011, 04:34 AM)wulfrano Wrote:
(08-07-2011, 04:08 AM)jovan66102 Wrote:
(08-07-2011, 04:03 AM)wulfrano Wrote: If he had really believed in God he would have made every effort to find Him in the True Church of Christ, something which he never did.  Therefore, in my opinion, he died as an atheist.

Wulfrano, I assume that English is not your first language, but I also assume that Spanish has a cognate to atheism/atheist. Would it be 'ateismo/ateisto? Surely, you know enough Greek to see a=without, theos=God. Without God Einstein was not. Muslims and Jews, as we agree, do not worship the True God as we do, but they are not 'without God'

In Spanish its "ateísmo-ateo".

Don't you know that in order to be saved you must believe in the Lord Jesus Christ?

I never claimed that he was saved by his theism, simply that he was not an atheist.

And what good did that do him?  He is in Hell right now.

God knows where he is now. At least being theist heretic he led less people away and to a lesser extent than say an atheist like Bill Maher.
Reply
#84
We don't have a right to murder. In fact theologians usually will only support the right of the State to kill someone in execution under due law. With that said, self-defense is always allowed until the threat is defused. This can mean killing them, but the killing is intended as a indirect result of a direct intention to defend one's life. Defending one's life is actually a good. This is, however, not opposed to pacificism, I think. Some people can voluntarily be a total pacificist as part of their path to sanctity. And you can also take some of their arguments as having some weight, i.e., if someone isn't willing to stop a chain of violence, then where does it stop? The movement of Martin Luther King of nonviolence and noncooperation was brilliant, as was Gandhi's. Also there is the argument against war in the modern world, i.e., it is impossible to fulfill the requirements of just war in our time of total war. I find these arguments actually persuasive. My particular path is the "pacifist warrior". I will avoid you until you make it impossible for me to do that, and then I open the can up on you. As for war, I take it case by case. With that said, the US's wars are unjust. The Church's teaching supports killing and war as a total last resort in which all other options have failed. Killing is only warranted as an action of the State, or in the defense of oneself, loved ones or country. So Christians are pacifists, but just not in the modern liberal Buddhist (total pacificism) sort of way.
Reply
#85
(08-06-2011, 10:46 PM)K3vinhood Wrote:
(08-06-2011, 10:26 PM)wulfrano Wrote: I don't know where you got your information from. I always thought that  he was an atheist.

http://www.nndb.com/people/302/000022236/ Wrote:Albert Einstein-
Often used the word "God" or "Old Man" as a metaphor for the Laws of Nature. As a member of the American Humanist Association, there is little reason to think he believed in any kind of personal God. In a letter to Eric Gutkind dated 3 January 1954 he wrote, "The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weakness, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish... For me the Jewish religion like all others is an incarnation of the most childish superstitions. And the Jewish people to whom I gladly belong and with whose mentality I have a deep affinity have no different quality for me than all other people

I'm pretty sure he was an atheist, but not certain.

I am surprised by the offhandedness with which he rejects the Old Testament. His superficial (and subjective) rejection of the Jewish religion is very unbecoming of an intellectual.

Nevertheless, I was under the impression it was common knowledge that it could be gleaned from his writings that he was a Pantheist, who believed that God subsisted in all materiality.
Reply
#86
(08-08-2011, 02:58 PM)Scriptorium Wrote: We don't have a right to murder. In fact theologians usually will only support the right of the State to kill someone in execution under due law. With that said, self-defense is always allowed until the threat is defused. This can mean killing them, but the killing is intended as a indirect result of a direct intention to defend one's life. Defending one's life is actually a good. This is, however, not opposed to pacificism, I think. Some people can voluntarily be a total pacificist as part of their path to sanctity. And you can also take some of their arguments as having some weight, i.e., if someone isn't willing to stop a chain of violence, then where does it stop? The movement of Martin Luther King of nonviolence and noncooperation was brilliant, as was Gandhi's. Also there is the argument against war in the modern world, i.e., it is impossible to fulfill the requirements of just war in our time of total war. I find these arguments actually persuasive. My particular path is the "pacifist warrior". I will avoid you until you make it impossible for me to do that, and then I open the can up on you. As for war, I take it case by case. With that said, the US's wars are unjust. The Church's teaching supports killing and war as a total last resort in which all other options have failed. Killing is only warranted as an action of the State, or in the defense of oneself, loved ones or country. So Christians are pacifists, but just not in the modern liberal Buddhist (total pacificism) sort of way.

Just remember that there is a difference between "murder" and "kill".

The reason for this is that the concept of murder denotes the taking of the life of the innocent, whereby the concept of killing is the taking of life in general.

So, all murder is killing, but not all killing is murder.

The Hebrew word used in the Fifth Commandment is more accurately translated as (thou shalt not) "murder" than (thou shalt not) "kill".

The Fifth Commandment forbids us to murder, but it does not forbid us to kill. Presuming that the taking of life is just, killing is not forbidden by the commandment.

(Bear in mind, however, that only those who have received the authority by God to execute this justice may do so.)
Reply
#87
(08-08-2011, 05:33 PM)INPEFESS Wrote: Nevertheless, I was under the impression it was common knowledge that it could be gleaned from his writings that he was a Pantheist, who believed that God subsisted in all materiality.

QFT. I was quite surprised that people thought he was an atheist! :o
Reply
#88
(08-08-2011, 05:45 PM)jovan66102 Wrote:
(08-08-2011, 05:33 PM)INPEFESS Wrote: Nevertheless, I was under the impression it was common knowledge that it could be gleaned from his writings that he was a Pantheist, who believed that God subsisted in all materiality.

QFT. I was quite surprised that people thought he was an atheist! :o

Yes, I have never head that before. Based on his own observations of the natural order, he seemed to have found that position untenable (again, based on his writings).
Reply
#89
(08-08-2011, 12:28 AM)jovan66102 Wrote:
(08-07-2011, 09:26 PM)wulfrano Wrote: That's the way I learned to use the computer.  I did not have any formal schooling.  Whatever I know, I learned by asking questions.

Don't feel bad. I've been using computers for 40 years without formal training. Everything I've learned has been from friends and asking questions learned to program in BASIC with a book from the library and asking questions and I did the same when I learned to write HTML code! :)

What is HTML Code?
Reply
#90
(08-08-2011, 07:36 PM)wulfrano Wrote:
(08-08-2011, 12:28 AM)jovan66102 Wrote:
(08-07-2011, 09:26 PM)wulfrano Wrote: That's the way I learned to use the computer.  I did not have any formal schooling.  Whatever I know, I learned by asking questions.

Don't feel bad. I've been using computers for 40 years without formal training. Everything I've learned has been from friends and asking questions learned to program in BASIC with a book from the library and asking questions and I did the same when I learned to write HTML code! :)

What is HTML Code?

Hyper text markup language. Essentially what makes up the internet. That is until XML and Internet 2 take over.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)