Debating a Neo-Pagan
#11
St. Thomas Aquinas on "Turn the other cheek"
"Holy Scripture must be understood in the light of what Christ and the saints have actually practiced.  Christ did not offer His other cheek, nor Paul either.  Thus to interpret the injunction of the Sermon on the Mount literally is to misunderstand it.  This injunction signifies rather the readiness of the soul to bear, if it be necessary, such things and worse, without bitterness against the attacker.  This readiness our Lord showed, when He gave up His body to be crucified.  That response of the Lord was useful, therefore, for our instruction." (In John 18, lect. 4, 2)

Also
Josef Pieper comments: "The readiness to meet the supreme test by dying in patient endurance so that the good may be realized does not exclude the willingness to fight and to attack.  Indeed, it is from this readiness that the springs of action in the Christian receive that detachment and freedom which, in the last analysis, are denied to every sort of tense and strained activism." —The Four Cardinal Virtues (Notre Dame Press, 1966), 133.
Reply
#12
Let's have another "drive by".

The admonition to "turn the other cheek" is not to make a virtue of supine acquiescence but an admonition against retaliation and revenge.
Reply
#13

(01-07-2016, 09:34 PM)Oldavid Wrote: Let's have another "drive by".

The admonition to "turn the other cheek" is not to make a virtue of supine acquiescence but an admonition against retaliation and revenge.

I think I learn new words every time you post Oldavid. Not that I'm complaining.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Reply
#14
What kind of neo pagan is this guy, a Wiccan or one of those nationalist types often associated with black and Viking metal music like Graveland? I'm just curious.
Reply
#15
Yes. The rights of the individual predominates. We are to protect and benefit the population and in doing so is for the common good. We consider the interest of God's population. If the common good involved imposing restrictions to the personal rights of the citizen, then it is always to be considered the exception. The community is allowed to make demands on the citizen such has giving his life for it's protection. After the conditions that necessitated the imposition of the rule has passed, and it involved restricting individual rights,  then the rights of the individual are to be returned. NewAdvent, under (I think) Justice, or Common Good.

But on the issue, I feel there is a real danger. The unital family of these parts of the world generally are indoctrinated with teachings of generational retribution, and adopt religions that advocate acts of revenge. Family members are closely monitored and offspring murdered if the act is seen to damage dignity of the parents. It is sad to see the very young being force fed the anti social doctrine and made to express hatred has a natural expression. It is debatable if these damaged children can ever be 're-educated'(China).

However, I think that many self serving and deceiving policies of the past, have allowed western nations to feel self assured that might and technology over diplomacy could always fend off justified retaliation. (Catechism on War). It helped that they are 'over there' also. No longer will there be wars, "pistols at 50 paces" where one side concedes  to defeat , or battleship signing of surrender papers. The populace ignores their leader's agreement of surrender, or the opposition carries on underground activities for decades, and hostile nations are eager to feed them weapons. So we are headed for a garrisoned nation, while those 'across the pond' wait for the right moment. I think my grandkids will take the brunt of these future wars thanks to our policies.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)