[Moparbyfar]

Arcura, you claim to be a follower of Jesus teachings as set out in the bible yes? So what is your stance on war then?
(I'm not trying to change the subject, I do have a point to this Akoue)

[De Maria]

Arcura, you claim to be a follower of Jesus teachings as set out in the bible yes? So what is your stance on war then?
(I'm not trying to change the subject, I do have a point to this Akoue)

And it's a good point. We are discussing truth here, so I won't steal your thunder. Speak freely.

[Akoue]

Moparbyfar,

Point away!

[talaniman]

1. Is revealed truth limited to Scripture?
NO!
2. What role, if any, does Tradition have in allowing us to understand Scripture?

.Tradition-Beliefs or customs taught by one generation to the next, often orally.

Unless you know what your ancestor was living through at the time, it hard to know why he had a particular mindset, or why he wrote what he wrote.

[arcura]

Moparbyfar,
That IS a tough question.
I'm a Korean War vet. Been there. Done that.
I think that many wars should not have been fought.
Wars started to take away land from other counties or to absorb a neighbor are a no no in my book.
Wars fought to protect a country's territory against an aggressor is often a necessity.
Unfortunately war has been a reality for thousands of years. Jesus sometime spoke of war and or trying to make peace before and advancing army gets to an area.
God the Father, in the Old Testament ordered war against certain people who had displeased Him in some way.
I know of no wars which were ordered by God in the last 2000 years or so.
A country or army going to war to protect a neighbor or frendly country under attack is another matter that has been a necessity.
During all wars many times great harm is done unnessesarily.
I guess I'm like the politician who said that many of his constituents were against war and many were for it. "I stand squarely for the wishes of my constituents."
LOL...
Seriously...
The Catholic church has a teaching about '"just war" which I agree with because it makes sense.
You can read all about it at this site.
Catholic Answers: Just War Doctrine
I hope that answers your question satisfactorily,
Peace and kindness
Fred (arcura)

[Moparbyfar]

Thanks Arcura.
Ok so from what I can now understand, you believe what Augustine put into place centuries ago through his own interpretations (revealed truth perhaps?) This to me is a "tradition" accepted outside of the bible but not accepted by God. Why?
For one thing we know that it is going against God to commit murder, that Jesus true followers are recognized by their love in John 13:35, that Isaiah prophesied in Isa 2:4 about a group of people who would refuse to fight with weapons of war, instead choosing to live at peace with others, we read of Jesus reprimanding Peter when he tried defending him with a lethal weapon in Matt 26:52. He went on to say that all who live by the sword will die by it, showing that theocratic warfare with lethal weapons was no longer acceptable. This was also a good lesson to show his disciples that despite having weapons handy (common for Galileans), it was not God's will that they be used.
For these reasons among others I do not accept these "just wars" or any war as being truth any more than Jesus would. The only war that will have certain success is God's war at Armageddon.

[arcura]

Moparbyfar,
All wars are bad in many ways.
But is a person or nation justified in defending itself?
Or are we to let any aggressor kill us for any reason?
Personally I think not.
When the Japanese Empire attacked Pearl Harbor should we have just said, "Gee, I wish that you had not done that and done nothing to stop them from attacking other USA territories?I think not.
But in almost all cases I wish all people peace and kindness,
Fred

[De Maria]

Thanks Arcura.
Ok so from what I can now understand, you believe what Augustine put into place centuries ago through his own interpretations (revealed truth perhaps?) This to me is a "tradition" accepted outside of the bible but not accepted by God. Why?
For one thing we know that it is going against God to commit murder, that Jesus true followers are recognized by their love in John 13:35, that Isaiah prophesied in Isa 2:4 about a group of people who would refuse to fight with weapons of war, instead choosing to live at peace with others, we read of Jesus reprimanding Peter when he tried defending him with a lethal weapon in Matt 26:52. He went on to say that all who live by the sword will die by it, showing that theocratic warfare with lethal weapons was no longer acceptable. This was also a good lesson to show his disciples that despite having weapons handy (common for Galileans), it was not God's will that they be used.
For these reasons among others I do not accept these "just wars" or any war as being truth any more than Jesus would. The only war that will have certain success is God's war at Armageddon.

We all agree that war is evil. But should we permit innocent people to be killed when we have the wherewithal to defend them?

[Moparbyfar]

Jesus was innocent, was he not? Did he tell his men to fight the evil ones off? That was one of the points Jesus made to the disciples: you have the means to defend me but choose the way of peace. Does he tell us anywhere in the Greek scriptures to fight wars for God and innocent man?

[Moparbyfar]

Arcura, Paul states in 1 Cor 11:1 to become imitators of him as he is of Christ. So this is what we should want to do. Preach to the nations, whether they be Japanese or German or English or Masai. Tell them of the purpose of God's kingdom and how participation in wars shows hatred to fellow man. That God hates violence in any form. That being peacable toward all displays a Godlike quality. That the only means to bringing lasting peace is not by way of the earthly governments but by way of God's. Jesus tells us in John 17:16 to be no part of the world. Does not showing patriotism reflect being part of the world?

[arcura]

Moparbyfar,
You did not answer my or De Maria's questions.
I think I know what it will be, but I just want to be sure.
Peace and kindness.
Fred

[Akoue]

Okay, gang, we're getting off-topic here.

[De Maria]

Jesus was innocent, was he not? Did he tell his men to fight the evil ones off? That was one of the points Jesus made to the disciples: you have the means to defend me but choose the way of peace. Does he tell us anywhere in the Greek scriptures to fight wars for God and innocent man?

In order to understand what Jesus did, we need to understand the reason He is called the Lamb of God.

Jesus obeyed man and God. The Jews, whom Jesus recognized as the authorities, wanted Him to die for the nation:

John 11:49And one of them, named Caiaphas, being the high priest that same year, said unto them, Ye know nothing at all, 50 Nor consider that it is expedient for us, that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not.

But note that this was God's plan:
51And this spake he not of himself: but being high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus should die for that nation;

Therefore, this has nothing to do with defending innocent life. Martyrdom is voluntary. If I choose to follow in Jesus' footsteps, that is my business and God's.

Innocent bystanders are not martyrs by their own decision. They are attacked by evil men and evil men are subject to the law:

Romans 13:4
For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.

Therefore, valid Government may defend its people from attack by violent intruders. Whether individual criminals or entire countries.

[Moparbyfar]

The answers are there if you use your reason of thinking. ;)

[arcura]

Moparbyfar.
Yes, De Maria just gave them to us all.
People and nations SHOULD defend themselves.
BUT my question is would you?
Peace and kindness,
Fred

[arcura]

Akoue,
Yes we are getting off topic.
Lets go back to it.
It is a VERY interesting topic.
I'm learning and thinking much as we go along with it.
Fred

[Akoue]

In numerous posts Joe has called out for objectivity and I'd like to call attention to this very important point. The truth of Scripture is objective, it is public; it isn't subjective and private. So while we may come to understand the truths revealed in Scripture differently, the truths themselves remain objective. We just have to get to them. So, how in the face of different subjective understandings of Scripture do we arrive at the objective truth of Scripture?

(This is just to put a slightly different face on the question I asked Fred and Wondergirl. Hope it gets us back on track!)

[arcura]

Akoue,
I think a good path to that is as I did.
For 30 years I was a Protestant who was very much anti-Catholic.
But I became inquisitive of other faiths so I started going to different Churches and asking questions.
Yes I even went to the Mormon Church at the request of a girl I was dating.
Then I was invited to attend the local Catholic Church and some classes on Catholicism.
By then from experience with other faiths I was overloaded with questions.
Two different priests were exceptionally good at answering my questions.
But I was afraid that others in the class might be turned off with all of my questions and rebuttals.
I was encouraged to continue with them for I was told that all could learn from them.
Each faith explained to me why they believed as they did.
In some cases I was told why others were so bad AND of course the Catholic was the one attacked the most followed by the Jehovah's Witnesses and the Mormon.
That seeming hate (which I HAD BEEN guilty of) now caused me to sincerely wonder why. Some people even seemed to tremble and get red faces with the word Catholic.
But by then I was not interested what one faith said about others. I wanted to hear it from the horse's or dragon's mouth as it were.
In other words I was NOT going to a Ford dealer to find the truth about Dodge cars.
There were a number of things that impressed me about all of those different faiths.
One of the most important was that they all agree with each other on most biblical and theological issues.
But in some cases the difference were immense such as with the belief on the trinity, if Jesus was God the son, that Mary was the mother of God the Son, and Tradition.
As it turned out Tradition and Mary were two that was vastly misunderstood of flatly ruled out to beyond ignored.
To shorten this long story after many months of this I decided to attend Mass more than any other service because I came to like the Catholic liturgical service and the high regard and respect given to God.
After several years I finally became (confirmed) a member of the Catholic Church because I was convinced that it was true FULL Christianity with all of its five sacraments which provide much of God's grace.
So I suggest that others do the same as I did.
Investigate well, have an opened mind, and be sincere in your questioning. In other words really want to know why and respect the answers you get.
Peace and kindness.
Fred (arcura)

[JoeT777]

Professor, et al

While reflecting on the topic of "Scripture and Tradition" I ran into the term used by John Newman, “Rule of Faith”. Newman defines this rule as follows:

“This being the state of the case, the phrase 'Rule of Faith,' which is now commonly taken to mean the Bible by itself, [privately interpreted by the individual] …Scripture, when illuminated by the "Catholic Religion," or the Catholic Religion when fortified by Scripture, may either of them be called the Gospel committed to the Church, dispensed to the individual.” Cardinal John Henry Newman, Lecture 11

Within the Catholic Church, Scripture and Tradition are co-equal good news for the Body of Christ, the Church militant. Newman continues, “the great and essential difference between Catholics and non-Catholics was that Catholics interpreted Scripture by Tradition, and non-Catholics by their own private judgment”. Obviously there is a distinct difference of creed between Catholics and non-Catholics. One must first tear down Holy Tradition in order to be “free” to interpret Scripture privately. Which we know is not the case with non-Catholics.

Newman point’s to heresy after heresy of undisciplined interpretation arising in the early Church, e.g. “That not only Arians, but heretics generally, professed to be guided by Scripture, we know from many witnesses.”

It seems to me that freedom to interpret Scripture must be exercised maintaining the constraint of the Church when dealing with God’s revelations. After all, why teardown the foundations of our faith only to build it up again?

JoeT

[arcura]

JoeT777,
Excellent point.
Heresies abound yet today by those who tear down the actual history of The Church which took place immediately after what is recorded ins the book of Acts.
Peace and kindness,
Fred