/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

Because they were sinners and fell short of the glory of God

Me on the right

>>778098

'just war theory' m8

>>778100

Basically.

>>778100

>>778098

Oh yes, because the vikings and muslims are a bunch of good boys who dindu nuffin! Dey jus tryin to go to church! Wipipo raycis!

Learn history OP, not leftist Marxist history. Also these

>>778103

>>778109

You okay, anon?

>>778098

Try reading some medieval poetry about knights. If you do, you'll start to understand that they had an understanding of "Love thy enemies" that meant "Love thy enemies even as you are killing them if you have to". Medieval warriors were expected to give their enemies every possible mercy while fighting them: never stabbing an enemy in the back, never fighting an enemy who is unarmed or otherwise unready, always sparing the life of an enemy who surrenders, and even mourning and comforting fallen enemies as they were dying. There may have been warriors who failed to meet this standard, but the fact that this standard existed indicates that they at least tried to love their enemies, even as they were fighting to the death.

>>778098

>why did christian monarchs go to war

They went to war to protect their families, neighbours, civilians etc out of love for them just like the command dictates

>convert others by the sword

Never happened

>>778136

>Never happened

It did, and there's literally nothing wrong with it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_Crusades

>>778141

Brainlet, Reddit argument

Read this https://www.lewrockwell.com/2004/06/steven-latulippe/render-under-caesar/

>>778140

>literally nothing wrong with it

Christ never forced anyone to convert, and I know He didn’t like it when it happened

>>778098

That’s what happens when you stray from the Word of God and so your own thing

>>778128

Thats why the brits and french liquidated towns when they captured them, and then sent their own settlers who would be liquidated eventually.

No, they are not christian.

>>778147

Says the guy that follows a brainlet reddit ideology. I'm sorry you never read the bible. I'll pray for you.

>>778154

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Rouensurssure it was a brutish affair, but it wasn't a mutual shoah.

>>778154

Firstly, what conflict are you referring to? Secondly, one conflict being unjust does not render all conflicts that ever happened unjust.

>>778100

And yet, what did Christ say about treating sinners and unbelievers? "Let those without sin cast the first stone", "if you're not welcomed, shake the dust off your feet and walk away", "that you may be children of your heavenly Father, for he makes his sun rise on the bad and the good, and causes rain to fall on the just and the unjust", etc.

>>778103

Sounds like the poster didn't understand that non-violence isn't a form of pacifism. Was Francis of Assisi, the peaceful crusader, a pacifist?

Being faulty in practice is not hypocrisy. Hypocrisy is doing something you claim to not believe. It's part of Orthodox teaching that we all, including clergy and government, fail. We believe we fail and are susceptible to prelest.

Governments were stopping the preaching of the True Faith. Like it happened in the early Roman Empire and medieval Islam.

The analogy I read on a history book was that if you see a hospital enforcing harmful treatment on your neighbor and refusing to allow (keyword) your neighbor to get proper treatment if he so chose, is it not an act of love to shut it down? Is it not an act of love to put away the razor, using force, by which your neighbor mutilates himself? If it holds true for the body, how much more is it true for the soul?

Though I'd agree that the majority of wars were will to power faggotry, and now with total war and modern equipment it's impossible to justify it. Specially now that governments are not using hard power anymore, so hard power is not necessary.

>>778098

Love is about placing others on the right path to God's kingdom, not lying to them in compromise.

>>778103

Why does nearly every monastic rule, the Ladder of Divine Ascent, teachings of countless ascetic saints like the Desert Fathers, and historic rules for clergy against fighting contradict this then?

Christ also didn't defend himself when he was put to death, but remained silent most the time.

>>780003

Christ didn't defend himself not because of any implied pacifism, but because his mission WAS to die, defending himself would be pointless and contrary to his mission. Also clergy gerenally didn't fight, with the exception of monastic orders like the templars, warrior monks, which were sanctioned by the church and the pope anyways.

>>780004

I'm asking from an Orthodox perspective. The early Church Fathers all seem to agree that we are not to defend ourselves violently, because it can become a source of defending pride or ego. Seraphim of Sarov didn't defend himself and even defended some thieves who attacked him, none of the Apostles defended themselves, the rule of St. Benedict and St. Basil disallow defending themselves and even others. Some of the writings of the early Church Fathers are even pretty extreme about these things, mostly in the pursuit of removing all pride.

This violent ideal seems to primarily be a western line of thinking unsupported by the early Church, who were even martyred on mass without defending themselves. Why would we go so far as to harm others to defend ourselves, when our kingdom is not of this world?

>>778987

I think this is the answer that makes the most sense to me. We're bound to live in an imperfect world and Christ didn't come to make it perfect but only to teach what perfection is.

>>778993

I never said a thing about lying. Also you can't place other people. You can help them understand and inspire them, but people have to place themselves there.

>>780011

Rule of St. Benedict specifically forbids defending other monks, Peter died with his family and did not defend them, Jesus rebuked Peter for slicing the ear off of one of the guards from the temple in defense of Christ.

It seems apparent we're supposed to be non-violent, near pacifistic, unless commanded directly by God to do otherwise (as was the case with the ancient Israelites).

>>780013

I'm not against soldiers who kill others to defend the innocents who don't want to die. Antiviolence and sacrifice are a goodwill, but I don't think killing for a justifiable reason is a sin either. All I criticize are proselytization, colonialism, and declaration of war that the church endorsed in the past. Those are absolutely against the gospel.

>near pacifistic

Pacifist means to die in vain. I don't think dying for and while preaching the truth is vain.

>>780019

>proselytization

>against the Gospel

>>780024

Christ told the disciples to leave if they're unwelcomed in a town.

>>780026

He didn’t tell them to not proselytize at all.

>>780032

I meant to say proselytization by force.

Christ has killed countless men. He killed many in the Deluge, at Sodom and Gomorrah. Indeed part of the reason we die at all is because of his curse. However, he only does so for the sake of Justice and Charity.

>>778098

>>785871

Furthermore moral pacifism is a sin, as it is heresy. The state has an obligation to God to enforce his Justice amongst it's subjects.

>>778098

If you knew the context of that, you would know "one another" is referring to the other apostles.

This is a somewhat autistic question seeing as you'd have to not understand that what Jesus spoke of here was the highest attainable common goal and manner of conduct, and ignoring the entire nature of war. How are you going to love your neighbor? By being vaguely neutral and interspersingly friendly? Or by something more beautiful and hard to acquire, which might at one point require war with external forces to protect?

>>785874

This

>>778098

> Did Christ ever slay a man on earth?

He did whip the Pharisees. War can be just. Most Wars Euros engage in were politically motivated.

>>785876

>>785871

/thread

>>778098

in one perspective, Jesus kills every single person that lives. excluding those who are alive and saved at His return.

>>791089

JW, please fug off…

>>778098

Because most people in "Christian" lands throughout time are nominal Christians

>>791103

not a JW. Jesus is God.

If God is omnipresent, omniscient, and omnipotent, He ultimately decides who lives and who dies.

this is not heresy in the slightest.

>>790665

Yes, but he also prayed for them while dying on the cross.. and then many Pharisees and other Jews later converted after Pentecost. He simply wanted to kick them out of the temple. Not kill them.

We must imitate this. Or in his own words, "Amen, I say to you, unless you turn and become like children, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven."

It's one thing to see the initial reasons, say, for the Crusades as decent. It was defensive. But the idea of preaching through the sword is evil and will bear no good fruit. A person may as well be a Muslim themselves if that's how they behave.