pacifism for true Jesus' followers.

[drbrumley]

I have taken a look at myself in ways you couldn't even imagine.

I'm sure....

[JudgeRightly]

And you guys call me crazy...

Truster

I certainly don't call you crazy. Truster on the other hand...

[KingdomRose]

by their fruits shall you know them

the fruits of the japs and the krauts were evil

You totally miss the point. Catholic Americans killed Catholic Germans, and vice versa. What is wrong with that picture? Jesus said that his disciples would LOVE one another. But you have Catholics on one side killing Catholics on the other side. It looks like, according to what Jesus said, that NEITHER side was composed of Jesus' disciples. What the Germans did was evil, but they still were Catholics in good standing---no one was excommunicated, not even Hitler. To refer to one of Shakespeare's plays: "There is something rotten in the state of Denmark."

[KingdomRose]

Some of the pertinent Church teachings on the matter:

Spoiler

Legitimate defense

2263 The legitimate defense of persons and societies is not an exception to the prohibition against the murder of the innocent that constitutes intentional killing. The act of self-defense can have a double effect: the preservation of one's own life; and the killing of the aggressor. . . . The one is intended, the other is not.

2264 Love toward oneself remains a fundamental principle of morality. Therefore it is legitimate to insist on respect for one's own right to life. Someone who defends his life is not guilty of murder even if he is forced to deal his aggressor a lethal blow:

If a man in self-defense uses more than necessary violence, it will be unlawful: whereas if he repels force with moderation, his defense will be lawful. . . . Nor is it necessary for salvation that a man omit the act of moderate self-defense to avoid killing the other man, since one is bound to take more care of one's own life than of another's.

2265 Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others. The defense of the common good requires that an unjust aggressor be rendered unable to cause harm. For this reason, those who legitimately hold authority also have the right to use arms to repel aggressors against the civil community entrusted to their responsibility.

2266 . . . Legitimate public authority has the right and duty to inflict punishment proportionate to the gravity of the offense. Punishment has the primary aim of redressing the disorder introduced by the offense. . . Punishment then, in addition to defending public order and protecting people's safety, has a medicinal purpose: as far as possible, it must contribute to the correction of the guilty party.

2267 Assuming that the guilty party's identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor. . . .

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_cs...2c2a5.htm#2263

Blah blah blah. Meaningless gobble-de-gook. All that chatter is meant to overpower Jesus' clear teaching, and people like you are sucked right in. The RCC will say anything so that they can remain buddies with the nations that they are exhibiting power and authority within. Tell me---how does the Church explain this? They say that war is just and necessary, and the U.S., for example, would be rightly within the righteous parameters of what you posted concerning the Vatican archive. So it was totally acceptable for the U.S. Catholics to go to war and fight and kill the Germans. Now let's go to the other side....the Church is supporting German Catholics fighting and killing American Catholics. Which side is justified? Which side is righteous?

[Nihilo]

Blah blah blah. Meaningless gobble-de-gook. All that chatter is meant to overpower Jesus' clear teaching, and people like you are sucked right in. The RCC will say anything so that they can remain buddies with the nations that they are exhibiting power and authority within. Tell me---how does the Church explain this? They say that war is just and necessary, and the U.S., for example, would be rightly within the righteous parameters of what you posted concerning the Vatican archive.

If the U.S., for example, were to do what?

So it was totally acceptable for the U.S. Catholics to go to war and fight and kill the Germans.

The Germans were the aggressors.

Now let's go to the other side....the Church is supporting German Catholics fighting and killing American Catholics. Which side is justified?

Not the aggressors.

Which side is righteous?

Not the aggressors.

[KingdomRose]

If the U.S., for example, were to do what?
The Germans were the aggressors.
Not the aggressors.
Not the aggressors.

So it's totally fine by you that Catholics on one side are killing Catholics on the other side?

[Nihilo]

So it's totally fine by you that Catholics on one side are killing Catholics on the other side?

No. I'm not Catholic, but still no.

[KingdomRose]

No. I'm not Catholic, but still no.

Oh...I thought you had said you were Catholic. Maybe got you confused with someone else. Anyway, if you aren't fine with Catholics killing Catholics, how can you in good conscience agree with warfare that pits people of the same faith against each other? What is wrong with that picture?

[JudgeRightly]

Oh...I thought you had said you were Catholic. Maybe got you confused with someone else. Anyway, if you aren't fine with Catholics killing Catholics, how can you in good conscience agree with warfare that pits people of the same faith against each other? What is wrong with that picture?

Let me ask you about a different situation:

Was Abraham wrong for taking armed servants to battle against the kings of the land to rescue Lot and his household? (See Genesis 14, if you've forgotten the story.)

[Nihilo]

...if you aren't fine with Catholics killing Catholics, how can you in good conscience agree with warfare that pits people of the same faith against each other? What is wrong with that picture?

I don't "agree" with it. It seems as though you are of the mind that warfare is like a sporting contest, scheduled and arranged by promoters, something like the ancient Roman gladiator games. In such an opinion as this, it would make sense that we all just need to agree that warfare is immoral. But this isn't how warfare happens.

Warfare occurs because one group of people are aggressive against another group of people. I don't agree with or condone any aggression, and I strongly support the right of the recipients of any aggression, being able to defend themselves, up to and including, if need be, with lethal force.

[KingdomRose]

Let me ask you about a different situation:

Was Abraham wrong for taking armed servants to battle against the kings of the land to rescue Lot and his household? (See Genesis 14, if you've forgotten the story.)

That was an entirely different situation. Abraham regularly and routinely spoke with Jehovah about what to do, and aligned himself with Jehovah's will. Since Christ was on Earth Jehovah hasn't been telling any military leader what to do. None of them are waiting to get instructions from Jehovah. In fact, Moshe Dyan of Israel back in the 60s said that God had nothing to do with his strategies and actions. I remember that well. Do you think even U.S. presidents listen to God telling them what to do? I laugh at that idea.

[KingdomRose]

I don't "agree" with it. It seems as though you are of the mind that warfare is like a sporting contest, scheduled and arranged by promoters, something like the ancient Roman gladiator games. In such an opinion as this, it would make sense that we all just need to agree that warfare is immoral. But this isn't how warfare happens.

Warfare occurs because one group of people are aggressive against another group of people. I don't agree with or condone any aggression, and I strongly support the right of the recipients of any aggression, being able to defend themselves, up to and including, if need be, with lethal force.

I totally agree with your first paragraph.

[JudgeRightly]

That was an entirely different situation. Abraham regularly and routinely spoke with Jehovah about what to do, and aligned himself with Jehovah's will.

It was different? How is going to war back then versus in Jesus' time any different other than the technologies and strategies used? Where, in Genesis 14, does it show Abram talking with God about what to do about Lot's situation?

Since Christ was on Earth Jehovah hasn't been telling any military leader what to do.

Maybe that's because our government is Godless and doesn't care what He says?

None of them are waiting to get instructions from Jehovah.

Neither did Abram.

In fact, Moshe Dyan of Israel back in the 60s said that God had nothing to do with his strategies and actions. I remember that well.

So? Again, neither did Abram.

Do you think even U.S. presidents listen to God telling them what to do? I laugh at that idea.

I think God made man to be creative enough to not require God's suggestion at every decision.

But again, I ask, where does Genesis 14 state that Abraham first talked to God about going to war to recover his family?

KR, Genesis 14 does not have anywhere that Abraham stopped to talk to God about going to war.

They also took Lot, Abram’s brother’s son who dwelt in Sodom, and his goods, and departed.Then one who had escaped came and told Abram the Hebrew, for he dwelt by the terebinth trees of Mamre the Amorite, brother of Eshcol and brother of Aner; and they were allies with Abram.Now when Abram heard that his brother was taken captive, he armed his three hundred and eighteen trained servants who were born in his own house, and went in pursuit as far as Dan.He divided his forces against them by night, and he and his servants attacked them and pursued them as far as Hobah, which is north of Damascus.So he brought back all the goods, and also brought back his brother Lot and his goods, as well as the women and the people. - Genesis 14:12-16 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...6&version=NKJV

It literally says that Abram, as soon as he heard about Lot, armed his three hundred and eighteen trained servants and went in persuit of his enemy. He used military strategies to defeat his enemy and bring back Lot and his family.

Now, tell me the difference between Abram doing all of that, going to war against those who had attacked his family and neighbors, and, say, President Roosevelt taking us to war against Japan who had attacked us, and the rest of the Axis powers who were attacking other innocent nations.

Oh, and that word I bolded above? "Trained"? That shows that Abram had the foresight to train men to fight.