Saul Of Tarsus

[Nihil Obstat]

Just thought I'd fill you in so that the context of this thread makes sense.

[Patrick]

Oh! Yes, I see what you mean now -- how these are related.

[dairygirl4u2c]

i wasnt trying to avoid this thread. i just didn't see it.

ultimately, i'd say saul should've been killed, in certain situations.

the ultimate reason i say that, is because we don't go saying 'don't kill hitler' or 'don't kill mengele', just because there was a chance they might've converted.
now, i know some would say that was a just war, and they could've been killed.
i don't see the distinctions as enough to say one is justified and hte other isn't.
but beside just war, there's self defense and defense of others, that would justify killing hitler and mengele when the kllings were about to go down.

if hitler, and mgengel were to be put down. so would tiller. and, by that, so would saul.
saul can count himself lucky by the grace of God that he never was put down, and had a chance, in this life, to convert.

if people are killing three year olds, once a week, to use that analogy again (where it has the same political chance at change as abortion, etc, to make the control group). we wouldn't "do the political process", or "try to change hearts" etc. we'd kill, if not in just war, then in defense of others etc.

the only conclusions we can draw, is that saul probalby in certain situations should've been killed too.

to me, when i see this thread (i've responded to these points before, just not with saul as the hypothetical-- ie when it was 'we shouldn't kill in case he converts' type stuff), i see it as a rationalization.
"you wouldn't kill a bunny rabbit, would you?". this is sort of how it sounds, this thread. i know it's not a perfect analogy, but i'm just trying to make the point.
yes, i would kill a bunny rabbit, in the right situation. and, yes, i would kill brother paul, back when he was the persecuter saul, as well.

when i try to figure out how it is people rationalize letting kids be murdered, as they do here and most places, it does seem to me to come back to some sort of emotive thing rather than a decent argument. it comes down to things like: "i don't know why... i just feel weird about it" (much like killing in just war, killing hitler, pulling the trigger on the electric chair for a lunatic who will escape etc and needs put down-- all probably feel weird at first-- point being, it's not much of a reason) or "it's like you're killing the bunny rabbit" (metaphor for 'killling saul when he might convert", regardless of the fact we don't say that about others that need put down)

these are not just the rants of a noncatholic -- there's respectable catholics here who think this way. just war, and defense of self and others are also catholic doctrines, even if many pasificist christians of yester year or today don't use them etc.
now, perhaps the edges of the doctrines are shaky-- but when it comes down to it, we know we'd defer the edges of the theory to saving the three year olds who die every week. -- so, we should defer the edges of the theory to those who are abpout to be born too. (late term ones, i mean)(various qualifications for why earlier on is different, as the other thread indicates)

------

in a sense, saul should've been killed before hilter when hitler was dictrator but before WWII. the reason, hitler wasn't involved in a just war, and he himself didn't perpetrate the killings. if defense of others etc was involved, the killing would've had to be of those who pulled the trigger. hitler was only the manager type.
saul, and tiller, both 'pulled the trigger' whereas, hitler did not.
now, i don't think i really believe all that. (why i said 'in a sense'). hitler was cause enough, proximately speaking, to have been killed. but, one can see by this last paragraph, what happens when you try to be rigid about the theories -- you take them to the point the were never intended-- indications of what's the only possible ways of killing--- instead of only meant to be indications of specific examples of what is okay.
(plus, in the case of tiller, and saul, etc-- even current theory is arguably enough to have put them down)

Edited July 11, 2009 by dairygirl4u2c

[dairygirl4u2c]

i don't know if the earlier christians ever fought back. if they didn't, and we shoujldn't-- then my guess is all the theory that's built up about just war and defense of self and others, is man made and not the way things ought to be. (im always open, theoretically, to being wrong). as it stands, those doctrines do exist, though.

there's also a distinction, the idea 'we're to take it, cause we're to just take persecution for being christian'. even if that idea is valid, which im not sure it is, that doens't necessarily apply to when kids are being killed. ie, 'it's okay if ya kill me... but once you start killing little kids, you've crossed the line.'
or, maybe we can let the saul's live, or people persecute chrsitians-- given they might be thinking they are doing God's will etc, and given they mean well they might convert. i suppose ya might apply that reasoinngin to the abortion doctors, but i doubt they think they're doing God'swill anyway. more than likely, they are to be distinguished from those who persecute in the name of God. (and i don't think the initial point is all that great either ie 'let em live cause they mean well per God'-- i'm just trying to throw a bone to those who oppose my arguments, ie the bone is needed cause it doesn't seem to me they have much else)

Edited July 11, 2009 by dairygirl4u2c

[dairygirl4u2c]

interesting thread and response.

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='Brother Vinny' date='08 June 2009 - 09:41 PM' timestamp='1244515282' post='1886834']
So, the question is this: prior to Saul's Damascus Road experience, would a Christian have been justified in slaughtering him?
[/quote]

Yes. He was on his way to kill innocent people. How on earth could you think it would [i]not [/i]be moral to kill him in order to stop him?

~Sternhauser

Edited January 14, 2010 by Sternhauser

[Era Might]

[quote name='Sternhauser' date='13 January 2010 - 08:49 PM' timestamp='1263433748' post='2036594']
Yes. He was on his way to kill innocent people. How on earth could you think it would [i]not [/i]be moral to kill him in order to stop him?

~Sternhauser
[/quote]
I would say that the early Christians were, in a certain sense, not innocent people; or rather, they were not civilians. They were soldiers for Christ. Their weapon was "the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God" (Ephesians 6:17). For the early Christians to have resorted to earthly weapons would have been, in a certain sense, to desert the army of Christ for another army, to become traitors. That is why they did not kill people like Saul. They all understood that they were soldiers for Christ, and they fought with spiritual weapons. If anyone was going to be killed, the early Christians wanted it to be they themselves, for the blood of the martyrs is the seed of the Church.

[quote]Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God; for it is written, "Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord." No, "if your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him drink; for by so doing you will heap burning coals upon his head." Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.

--Romans 12:19-21[/quote]

[dairygirl4u2c]

im not sure they never killed, but that's just speculation. and, if they didn't, im not sure they were in the right.

but what is the case, is that i dont see the distinction, between them killing a persecutor like all that... and some christian now, using commonly accepted catholic arguments, 'defense of self', 'defense of others', 'just war' etc etc. they can't both be right. maybe if jews started killing us, givcen it's in the name of God, or muslims, we're jut to take that? yeah, id like to see the day when muslims start attacking christians, and them saying it's their duty to take it...

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='Era Might' date='13 January 2010 - 09:05 PM' timestamp='1263434708' post='2036608']
I would say that the early Christians were, in a certain sense, not innocent people; or rather, they were not civilians. They were soldiers for Christ. Their weapon was "the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God" (Ephesians 6:17). For the early Christians to have resorted to earthly weapons would have been, in a certain sense, to desert the army of Christ for another army, to become traitors. That is why they did not kill people like Saul. They all understood that they were soldiers for Christ, and they fought with spiritual weapons. If anyone was going to be killed, the early Christians wanted it to be they themselves, for the blood of the martyrs is the seed of the Church.
[/quote]

Why just "early" Christians? Did the nature of Christianity change?

Our Lord was talking about vengeance. Defense of the innocent is not vengeful.

~Sternhauser

[Era Might]

[quote name='Sternhauser' date='13 January 2010 - 09:59 PM' timestamp='1263437968' post='2036645']
Why just "early" Christians? Did the nature of Christianity change?

Our Lord was talking about vengeance. Defense of the innocent is not vengeful.

~Sternhauser
[/quote]
It seems clear to me that the early Christians never killed, in defense or otherwise. I have my opinions as to [i]why[/i] they never killed. But as I said, it seems clear to me that they never killed.

[Aloysius]

If Saul of Tarsus was attempting to kill some family member of mine, I would certainly have used deadly force to stop him, and would have bee justified in doing so. had someone waged a war against Saul and his ilk in order to protect the persecuted Christians, it'd be absolutely licit to kill him in the context of such a war, in defense. I could envision an individual possibly being justified along the same lines, coming up to Saul and confronting him and perhaps killing him to stop him from continuing his murder.

the fact that he later repented is irrelevant. repentance should indeed cover all sins so that all can forgive; but the immediate consequences of sins shouldn't be avoided due to some possibility of future repentance. If someone had defended one of Saul's victims to the point of killing him, then that was Saul's fault.

the blood of the martyrs may be the seed of the Church, but the sword of Constantine is the plow of the field where that seed grows.

remember that Our Lord commanded His Apostles to own swords themselves. Those swords were very likely used in defensive situations. Why else did Our Lord command them to have them? To look nice on shelves?

Now, I wouldn't advocate a "hunting down" mentality in a war because such a mentality would tend towards vengeance... so hunting down Saul of Tarsus or hunting down mass murderers of babies might not be the exact best course of action; but I will say this: deadly defensive force against either person to protect the lives of those they were attempting to kill is certainly morally justifiable.

and the popular image of the Apostles and early Church being just a bunch of pacifists is wrong, IMO. Sure, there were many who refused any type of violence, commendably, but there was a wide range in the early Church.... and the Apostles themselves owned swords by Our Lord's express command. it'd be a bit hypocritical to carry a sword if you were unwilling to use it; an empty threat: a lie, as it were.

there were very likely members of the early Church who did engage in acts of defensive violence. deacons stood guard outside house masses to ensure no one who wasn't a Christian could get in, I imagine someone might've tried to get in by force and might have had to be restrained violently. if the Apostles owned swords, I'd bet they told their successors to own swords. it was a dangerous world, and there were many situations that they could have fallen into in which violence provided safety for themselves and for the innocent, and I see no evidence that they didn't utilize any violence.

[Era Might]

[quote name='Aloysius' date='14 January 2010 - 12:33 PM' timestamp='1263490421' post='2037006']remember that Our Lord commanded His Apostles to own swords themselves. Those swords were very likely used in defensive situations. Why else did Our Lord command them to have them? To look nice on shelves?[/quote]
The one recorded time a disciple used a sword, Our Lord told him, "Put your sword back into its place; for all who take the sword will perish by the sword" (Matthew 26:52).

Also, I don't think it's accurate to say that Our Lord commanded his disciples to have swords. The only reference I am aware of is Luke 22:35-38:

[quote]And he said to them, "When I sent you out with no purse or bag or sandals, did you lack anything?" They said, "Nothing." He said to them, "But now, let him who has a purse take it, and likewise a bag. And let him who has no sword sell his mantle and buy one. For I tell you that this scripture must be fulfilled in me, 'And he was reckoned with transgressors'; for what is written about me has its fulfilment." And they said, "Look, Lord, here are two swords." And he said to them, "It is enough." [/quote]
I'm not sure what Our Lord means here, but it seems to me that far from commanding his disciples to possess swords, he is associating swords with "transgressors." In other words, it seems that he is saying that the prophecy requires him to be "reckoned with transgressors," and thus Our Lord tells the disciples to take money and swords (symbols of this world) in order that they may possess the possessions of "transgressors," thereby fulfilling the prophecy.

[Era Might]

[quote name='Aloysius' date='14 January 2010 - 12:33 PM' timestamp='1263490421' post='2037006']it was a dangerous world, and there were many situations that they could have fallen into in which violence provided safety for themselves and for the innocent, and I see no evidence that they didn't utilize any violence.
[/quote]
The fact that Scripture NEVER records any of the disciples resorting to swords, but instead records complete willingness to become martyrs, is pretty big evidence.

I have also seen references to "The Apostolic Tradition of Hippolytus of Rome," which is apparently a third century document. I'm not aware of the history of this document, but I cite it here for consideration:

[quote]They will inquire concerning the works and occupations of those are who are brought forward for instruction. ...A charioteer, likewise, or one who takes part in the games, or one who goes to the games, he shall cease or he shall be rejected. If someone is a gladiator, or one who teaches those among the gladiators how to fight, or a hunter who is in the wild beast shows in the arena, or a public official who is concerned with gladiator shows, either he shall cease, or he shall be rejected. If someone is a priest of idols, or an attendant of idols, he shall cease or he shall be rejected. A military man in authority must not execute men. If he is ordered, he must not carry it out. Nor must he take military oath. If he refuses, he shall be rejected. If someone is a military governor, or the ruler of a city who wears the purple, he shall cease or he shall be rejected. The catechumen or faithful who wants to become a soldier is to be rejected, for he has despised God. [...][/quote]

[Era Might]

[quote name='Aloysius' date='14 January 2010 - 12:33 PM' timestamp='1263490421' post='2037006']the blood of the martyrs may be the seed of the Church, but the sword of Constantine is the plow of the field where that seed grows.[/quote]
I would rather that the field be burned by pagans than that Christians resort to Constantine's sword in the field's defense. Our Lord did not need swords to save the world. The Church does not need swords either; indeed, by resorting to swords in defense of the Gospel, the Church would only be killing herself: As Our Lord said, "all who take the sword will perish by the sword" (Matthew 26:52).

[Aloysius]

Just because the scriptures don't record the events doesn't mean none happened. The events actually recorded by the scriptures make me think it very likely that such events probably occurred. And again, Our Lord commanded His Apostles to own swords. If they didn't have one, they were to sell their cloak

Your cited quotation doesn't convince me of any pacifism in the Early Church. Sure, there was a definite opposition to the blood lust of the Romans... but nothing that indicates to me a rejection of the Old Testament traditions of justified violence.... it'd be a huge turnaround from Old Testament traditions if Christianity stood on principal against any and all types of violence... and I've seen no proof of such a complete 180. It opposed most types of Roman violence... but did not oppose its members owning deadly weapons... it couldn't have, Our Lord commanded His apostles to own such deadly weapons.

your argument from silence is fallacious because silence would indicate no change from the commonly accepted teachings that the Jewish converts would've accepted. Show me where the Apostles preached to their Jewish converts that all types of violence are to be rejected... there is no such teaching in the Early Church. The Early Church would've kept up the same traditions of justifiable violence in defense of the innocent.

[Era Might]

[quote name='Aloysius' date='14 January 2010 - 01:12 PM' timestamp='1263492733' post='2037027']
Just because the scriptures don't record the events doesn't mean none happened.[/quote]
That's true. But unless you have evidence to supplement Scripture, then to say that the early Christians resorted to swords is unfounded speculation. All the Scriptural evidence suggests that they did not.

[quote name='Aloysius' date='14 January 2010 - 01:12 PM' timestamp='1263492733' post='2037027']your argument from silence is fallacious because silence would indicate no change from the commonly accepted teachings that the Jewish converts would've accepted. Show me where the Apostles preached to their Jewish converts that all types of violence are to be rejected... there is no such teaching in the Early Church. The Early Church would've kept up the same traditions of justifiable violence in defense of the innocent.
[/quote]
I am not arguing from silence; you are. I cited Our Lord's clear command to the disciple who tried to use a sword to put his sword away, for "all who take the sword will perish by the sword" (Matthew 26:52).

As for the idea that the Apostles taught that violence is never permissible, I have not made that claim; though I am claiming that the Apostles did reject any and all violence in defense of the Gospel. I am also claiming is that the Apostles and the early Christians never used the sword, and I think there are very important theological reasons why. But that's probably a longer discussion than we want to get into here.

[Aloysius]

[quote name='Era Might' date='14 January 2010 - 02:05 PM' timestamp='1263492325' post='2037022']
I would rather that the field be burned by pagans than that Christians resort to Constantine's sword in the field's defense. Our Lord did not need swords to save the world. The Church does not need swords either; indeed, by resorting to swords in defense of the Gospel, the Church would only be killing herself: As Our Lord said, "all who take the sword will perish by the sword" (Matthew 26:52).
[/quote]
Constantine's sword is the plow that makes the seeds grow. It is like the swords that Christ commanded His Apostles to own in Luke 22:36... yes, indeed, those who live by the sword will die by the sword; but that just means not to live by the sword. Using the sword when justified is not living by the sword.

[Aloysius]

[quote name='Era Might' date='14 January 2010 - 02:13 PM' timestamp='1263492806' post='2037029']
That's true. But unless you have evidence to supplement Scripture, then to say that the early Christians resorted to swords is unfounded speculation. All the Scriptural evidence suggests that they did not.


I am not arguing from silence; you are. I cited Our Lord's clear words that the disciple who tried to use a sword should put his sword away, for "all who live by the sword will perish by the sword."

As far as the Apostles saying that violence is never permissible, I have not made that claim. What I am claiming is that the Apostles and the early Christians never used the sword. And I think there are very important theological reasons why. But that's probably a longer discussion than we want to get into here.
[/quote]
I disagree. I see no evidence in the scriptures that the Apostles abandoned the Jewish traditions of God sanctioned violence in defense of the innocent.

[Era Might]

[quote name='Aloysius' date='14 January 2010 - 01:15 PM' timestamp='1263492929' post='2037031']
Constantine's sword is the plow that makes the seeds grow. It is like the swords that Christ commanded His Apostles to own in Luke 22:36... yes, indeed, those who live by the sword will die by the sword; but that just means not to live by the sword. Using the sword when justified is not living by the sword.
[/quote]
I reject any use of the sword in defense of the Gospel. And I disagree that any sword can help the seeds grow. I think that the Church has paid the price over the centuries for resorting to the sword in defense of the Gospel. Every blow of a sword struck for the Gospel is first a wound to the Body of Christ.

[Socrates]

The Church teaches that force is legitimate in self-defense, or defending the innocent, so we should accept that.
We should also remember that violent force is a last resort only, and should not be carried out casually.