OrthodoxChristianity.net

Moderated Forums => Free-For-All => Religious Topics => Topic started by: jayjay on January 16, 2007, 06:17:25 AM

Title: Orthodox view of the Armed Forces
Post by: jayjay on January 16, 2007, 06:17:25 AM
Is there an Orthodox view on serving in the Armed Forces??? I am a member of the Australian Army Reserves. I am in an infantry battalion in an administrative capacity. There is talk of an overseas deployment later this year. Is there a view on killing?? We have rules of deployment, and can only fire if fired upon. Personally, I have no qualms with this, but is there an official church position on this?? Just curious!!
Title: Re: Orthodox view of the Armed Forces
Post by: CRCulver on January 16, 2007, 06:35:17 AM
The amount of saints who were soldiers is huge, and the military under the Roman Empire got much praise from the Fathers as an important institution. Orthodox chaplains serve in the U.S. military, and are often the only chaplains permitted in the militaries of Orthodox countries. They bless troops before deployment and pray that God may project them.

For what it's worth, I served in the U.S. Navy before asking for and receiving honourable discharge as a conscientious objector. I doubted that I would find the orders given to me always in keeping with principles of godliness and justice. However, though anyone is free to refrain from serving, no Orthodox Christian can claim that the military in general is an unacceptable institution. There's a group called Orthodox Peace Fellowship that has recently tried very much to claim otherwise, but they are very much pariahs among those for respect for the tradition of the Church.
Title: Re: Orthodox view of the Armed Forces
Post by: bergschlawiner on January 16, 2007, 05:40:18 PM
I have served in the regular Army for 28 years of my adult life and have never heard of any Orthodox objections to military service and have always been welcomed in local parishes where I was stationed.  The military has always been supported by the orthodox chaplaincy and local parishes where there were no chaplains.  I remember being at Ft Leonard Wood Missouri in 1963-64 when Father Theodosius Lazor came from Madison, Illinois for a monthly Divine Liturgy - he became later Metropolitan Theodosius.  In Vietnam in 1967-68 we had Fr Margitich in Saigon.  Navy chaplain Fr Boris Geeza went on to become Bishop Boris (OCA).  Navy chaplain Fr, Jerome Cwicklinski with the Marines in Iraq was retired as a Marine before becoming a priest.  The list goes on and on.
CW3, Retired
Title: Re: Orthodox view of the Armed Forces
Post by: Riddikulus on January 16, 2007, 07:38:41 PM
Is there an Orthodox view on serving in the Armed Forces??? I am a member of the Australian Army Reserves. I am in an infantry battalion in an administrative capacity. There is talk of an overseas deployment later this year. Is there a view on killing?? We have rules of deployment, and can only fire if fired upon. Personally, I have no qualms with this, but is there an official church position on this?? Just curious!!

This might not be much help, but I understand that if anyone kills another person, they are denied the Eucharist for a considerable time. Killing, in Orthodoxy, in that it affects the partaking of the Holy Eucharist, does seem to be seen as a quite serious sin. 

Title: Re: Orthodox view of the Armed Forces
Post by: Fr. George on January 17, 2007, 12:40:12 AM
This might not be much help, but I understand that if anyone kills another person, they are denied the Eucharist for a considerable time. Killing, in Orthodoxy, in that it affects the partaking of the Holy Eucharist, does seem to be seen as a quite serious sin. 

Part of it is the view of sin... Part of it is the knowledge that any taking of life seriously affects the person and requires a long period of healing - a period for which partaking of the EUcharist is a goal, not a means.  Even if the killing is "justified" it still directly affects the way people think and act, and to a certain degree shakes them.  Depending on the context and on how much it does affect them, the period of non-Communion can be longer or shorter.
Title: Re: Orthodox view of the Armed Forces
Post by: Riddikulus on January 17, 2007, 12:56:49 AM
Part of it is the view of sin... Part of it is the knowledge that any taking of life seriously affects the person and requires a long period of healing - a period for which partaking of the EUcharist is a goal, not a means.  Even if the killing is "justified" it still directly affects the way people think and act, and to a certain degree shakes them.  Depending on the context and on how much it does affect them, the period of non-Communion can be longer or shorter.

Yes, as I said, killing is considered quite a serious sin. And I'll add to that; even if "justified", killing is quite a serious sin.

My priest once mentioned that if he was to cause the death of someone, even accidentally - car accident or something - he would never be able to consecrate the Eucharist. I don't recall if he said that he could remain a priest.


   
Title: Re: Orthodox view of the Armed Forces
Post by: Matthew777 on January 17, 2007, 01:45:49 AM
Is there an Orthodox view on serving in the Armed Forces???

In the Gospels, how did Jesus relate to members of the military?
Title: Re: Orthodox view of the Armed Forces
Post by: Riddikulus on January 17, 2007, 01:50:56 AM
In the Gospels, how did Jesus relate to members of the military?

He said; "Father forgive them. For they know not what they do".  :P
Title: Re: Orthodox view of the Armed Forces
Post by: Anastasios on January 17, 2007, 01:56:46 AM
Let's remember though that St Basil said explicitly that those killing in the army may still be priests though later on.
Title: Re: Orthodox view of the Armed Forces
Post by: Riddikulus on January 17, 2007, 02:01:16 AM
Let's remember though that St Basil said explicitly that those killing in the army may still be priests though later on.

Post the event, yes. Looks like marriage and killing are level-pegged, doesn't it?  :o
Title: Re: Orthodox view of the Armed Forces
Post by: GiC on January 17, 2007, 02:03:19 AM
St. Basil even went further to insist that killing in war is not a sin...any penances applied are purely for medicinal reasons and no wrong doing is to be implied. Later bishops and patriarchs would even take it a step further, regarding failure to kill in war as a sin and killing as a virtue...some even suggested that those who died in defence of the empire were to be regarded as martyrs for the faith.
Title: Re: Orthodox view of the Armed Forces
Post by: ozgeorge on January 17, 2007, 08:06:37 AM
Is there an Orthodox view on serving in the Armed Forces???
The Church prays for the members of the Armed Forces in the Litany of Fervant Supplication:
"We pray for this country, its ruler, its people, civil authorities and armed forces"
St. Barbara is your Patron.
On the Feast of St. Barbara (December 4th) the Greek armed forces celebrate their Patronal Feast.
Title: Re: Orthodox view of the Armed Forces
Post by: Simayan on January 17, 2007, 09:05:48 AM
I think there's a difference between killing for yourself, and killing to defend your country and family.

Constantine XI did not commit a grave sin when he charged headfirst into Ottoman soldiers, killing multitudes of them before he was struck down.
Title: Re: Orthodox view of the Armed Forces
Post by: Veniamin on January 17, 2007, 10:23:20 AM
The Church prays for the members of the Armed Forces in the Litany of Fervant Supplication:
"We pray for this country, its ruler, its people, civil authorities and armed forces"

And we don't just pray for the armed forces, but also for their victory.

Quote
St. Barbara is your Patron.
On the Feast of St. Barbara (December 4th) the Greek armed forces celebrate their Patronal Feast.

Leave it to the Greeks to mess it up. ;)  St. Barbara's the patron of artillery, St. Maurice of Infantry, St. Andrew of Paratroopers, and St. George of cavalrymen.

Title: Re: Orthodox view of the Armed Forces
Post by: Fr. George on January 17, 2007, 10:28:57 AM
Leave it to the Greeks to mess it up. ;)  St. Barbara's the patron of artillery, St. Maurice of Infantry, St. Andrew of Paratroopers, and St. George of cavalrymen.

What about amphibious assault vehicles ;)

I and my saint's cavalrymen will be coming up to defend the flanks no matter what!
Title: Re: Orthodox view of the Armed Forces
Post by: Veniamin on January 17, 2007, 11:00:13 AM
What about amphibious assault vehicles ;)

I and my saint's cavalrymen will be coming up to defend the flanks no matter what!

St. Andrew's also claimed by marines.
Title: Re: Orthodox view of the Armed Forces
Post by: Simayan on January 17, 2007, 03:33:12 PM
I wonder who the Patron Saint is of Rome: Total War-ers.  :D

I almost chose St. George. I've always liked his icon, plus he fits my W.A.S.P. heritage.
Title: Re: Orthodox view of the Armed Forces
Post by: Riddikulus on January 17, 2007, 06:20:05 PM
I wonder who the Patron Saint is of Rome: Total War-ers.  :D

I almost chose St. George. I've always liked his icon, plus he fits my W.A.S.P. heritage.

St George was Palestinian and was unheard of in England until the Crusaders brought his cult back with them. As as aside, I have read rumblings about changing the Patron Saint of England. St Alban seems to be leading the race, as he is the first British martyr and native to English soil. 
Title: Re: Orthodox view of the Armed Forces
Post by: Serbian Patriot on January 21, 2007, 06:13:35 PM
St George was Palestinian and was unheard of in England until the Crusaders brought his cult back with them. As as aside, I have read rumblings about changing the Patron Saint of England. St Alban seems to be leading the race, as he is the first British martyr and native to English soil. 
I think the chances of changing the English patron Saint are very small.  St.Edmund would deserve to be in contention if it were to happen though. 
Title: Re: Orthodox view of the Armed Forces
Post by: Riddikulus on January 21, 2007, 06:17:43 PM
I think the chances of changing the English patron Saint are very small.  St.Edmund would deserve to be in contention if it were to happen though. 

I doubt that it will happen, too. But definitely St Edmund should be a contender! I have actually seen strong support for him.
Title: Re: Orthodox view of the Armed Forces
Post by: scamandrius on January 21, 2007, 08:50:38 PM
And we don't just pray for the armed forces, but also for their victory.


Troparion of the Cross:

O Lord save Thy people and bless Thine inheritance, granting to them victory over all adversaries and by Thy Cross preserving Thine estate!

This is not to be read only in terms of the warfare we have with the devil but also current wars and strife.  The original text said to grant to the kings (Tsars) victory over the barbarians (i.e. Mongols).

Scamandrius
Title: Re: Orthodox view of the Armed Forces
Post by: pensateomnia on January 21, 2007, 09:22:05 PM
The original text said to grant to the kings (Tsars) victory over the barbarians (i.e. Mongols).

I'd have to check Taft, but I imagine the Royal Office (and hence the Royal Troparia) predate the Mongols by at least a few centuries. These hymns became popularized by monastic communities that had been founded and financially supported by the Byzantine royal family, since said monasteries would always read the royal office (asking for barbarian booty kicking and protection of the Lord's system of government (politeuma)) right before the Six Psalms in Orthros.
Title: Re: Orthodox view of the Armed Forces
Post by: isaelie on March 17, 2012, 05:02:34 PM
There is absolutely nothing to justify killing - anyone who says that it is ok if they are defending their country or other people, are fooling themselves.
You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth'. But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. “You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous..."

You cannot justify killing whatsoever ! Can you love your enemy and kill them??? My goodness, whoever says otherwise has distorted the message of Jesus Christ very much.

When they came to arrest Jesus, St Peter drew out his sword, and Jesus rebuked him! How can you people not understand the message that there is no such thing as a "justifiable" or "just" war.

God bless
Title: Re: Orthodox view of the Armed Forces
Post by: JamesR on March 17, 2012, 05:27:47 PM
Killing people is wrong in almost all circumstances I would say, like the poster above me. But then again, sometimes if you do not kill someone, then even more people will die and in a way you are responsible for the killing of multiple civilians when you could have just killed a handful of military personnel and protected them. For example, if the US had just sat back the entire time in World War II and did absolutely nothing, then millions more of Europeans would have died.
Title: Re: Orthodox view of the Armed Forces
Post by: Aindriú on March 17, 2012, 05:41:49 PM
sigh

For those people who would rather allow death, torture, and destruction to continue only to save their own skin or souls.

It's one thing to turn your own cheek. It's another, to look the other way, when one recognizes evil.
Title: Re: Orthodox view of the Armed Forces
Post by: isaelie on March 17, 2012, 10:23:45 PM
Put your sword back in its place,” Jesus said to him, “for all who draw the sword will die by the sword. Do you think I cannot call on my Father, and he will at once put at my disposal more than twelve legions of angels?

You make me laugh Aindriu because you think I was saying that by not killing other people we are looking the other way. I love the 'sigh' as well as if your reply is one which speak the truth. You know when Jesus was there to rebuke St Peter, you should of been there to spit in his face and say 'You're wrong, we should slay all these soldiers.'

Or perhaps you should of been there to rebuke the LORD when he was telling Jonah:
“You have had pity on the plant for which you have not labored, nor made it grow, which came up in a night and perished in a night. And should I not pity Nineveh, that great city, in which are more than one hundred and twenty thousand persons who cannot discern between their right hand and their left—and much livestock?”

Or perhaps Jesus was fooling around when He said 'Love your enemy'. How can you kill the people Christ has died for? Are the people you are fighting not made in the image of God?

Which one is it sir?
Title: Re: Orthodox view of the Armed Forces
Post by: isaelie on March 17, 2012, 10:40:06 PM
And besides, who are you to decide if one should live or not?
Title: Re: Orthodox view of the Armed Forces
Post by: PeterTheAleut on March 17, 2012, 10:42:20 PM
Put your sword back in its place,” Jesus said to him, “for all who draw the sword will die by the sword. Do you think I cannot call on my Father, and he will at once put at my disposal more than twelve legions of angels?

You make me laugh Aindriu because you think I was saying that by not killing other people we are looking the other way. I love the 'sigh' as well as if your reply is one which speak the truth. You know when Jesus was there to rebuke St Peter, you should of been there to spit in his face and say 'You're wrong, we should slay all these soldiers.'

Or perhaps you should of been there to rebuke the LORD when he was telling Jonah:
“You have had pity on the plant for which you have not labored, nor made it grow, which came up in a night and perished in a night. And should I not pity Nineveh, that great city, in which are more than one hundred and twenty thousand persons who cannot discern between their right hand and their left—and much livestock?”

Or perhaps Jesus was fooling around when He said 'Love your enemy'. How can you kill the people Christ has died for? Are the people you are fighting not made in the image of God?

Which one is it sir?
You do realize that the OP asked for an Orthodox view of the armed forces?
Title: Re: Orthodox view of the Armed Forces
Post by: JamesRottnek on March 17, 2012, 10:49:14 PM
There is absolutely nothing to justify killing - anyone who says that it is ok if they are defending their country or other people, are fooling themselves.
You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth'. But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. “You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous..."

You cannot justify killing whatsoever ! Can you love your enemy and kill them??? My goodness, whoever says otherwise has distorted the message of Jesus Christ very much.

When they came to arrest Jesus, St Peter drew out his sword, and Jesus rebuked him! How can you people not understand the message that there is no such thing as a "justifiable" or "just" war.

God bless

You must have missed about 20% of the Orthodox Calendar...
Title: Re: Orthodox view of the Armed Forces
Post by: Luke on March 17, 2012, 10:49:45 PM
So far the discussion has been about killing.  Granted that is what the military has to do to defend our country, which is justifiable, because the verses about turning the other cheek, etc, are about personal attacks. Also, there are many soldiers who have served and never fired a gun, outside of target practice.  Are they not allowed to work in order to support themselves and their families?
Title: Re: Orthodox view of the Armed Forces
Post by: PeterTheAleut on March 17, 2012, 10:53:43 PM
Also, there are many soldiers who have served and never fired a gun, outside of target practice.  Are they not allowed to work in order to support themselves and their families?
In all fairness to both sides, I suppose the same question could be asked of a stripper.
Title: Re: Orthodox view of the Armed Forces
Post by: isaelie on March 17, 2012, 11:57:03 PM
You do realize that the OP asked for an Orthodox view of the armed forces?

You must have missed about 20% of the Orthodox Calendar...

What are you guys saying... I don't understand
Title: Re: Orthodox view of the Armed Forces
Post by: PeterTheAleut on March 18, 2012, 12:05:59 AM
You do realize that the OP asked for an Orthodox view of the armed forces?
What I'm saying is that I see no evidence to believe you're spouting anything more than your personal interpretation of the Gospel.
Title: Re: Orthodox view of the Armed Forces
Post by: That person on March 18, 2012, 12:09:30 AM
You do realize that the OP asked for an Orthodox view of the armed forces?

You must have missed about 20% of the Orthodox Calendar...

What are you guys saying... I don't understand
Essentially, they're saying that what you say doesn't represent an Orthodox view and noting that the Church has many feasts celebrating military victory. Orthodox pacifism is a thing, but it's a minority position.
Title: Re: Orthodox view of the Armed Forces
Post by: isaelie on March 18, 2012, 12:20:08 AM
So what exactly is the Orthodox view?
Title: Re: Orthodox view of the Armed Forces
Post by: Ortho_cat on March 18, 2012, 12:20:49 AM
The God of the OT certainly isn't a pacifist...
Title: Re: Orthodox view of the Armed Forces
Post by: isaelie on March 18, 2012, 12:21:55 AM
The God of the New Testament is
Title: Re: Orthodox view of the Armed Forces
Post by: isaelie on March 18, 2012, 12:25:07 AM
People often revert back to the Old Testament,
but didn't Christ address this when he said:
“You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’ But I tell you, do not resist an evil person.
Title: Re: Orthodox view of the Armed Forces
Post by: Ortho_cat on March 18, 2012, 12:27:07 AM
The God of the New Testament is

Jesus was not opposed to self defense, at least.

Luke 22:36

 36 He said to them, “But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one.
Title: Re: Orthodox view of the Armed Forces
Post by: isaelie on March 18, 2012, 12:27:40 AM
I think that statement is pretty clear.. or am I wrong? Or as PetertheAleut has said - 'I have spout out my personal interpretation?'
Is the translation wrong?
Title: Re: Orthodox view of the Armed Forces
Post by: isaelie on March 18, 2012, 12:29:07 AM
You see that's a personal interpretation right there...
@orthocat
Title: Re: Orthodox view of the Armed Forces
Post by: That person on March 18, 2012, 12:31:09 AM
So what exactly is the Orthodox view?
I dunno. As with most times when you ask this question, three different Orthodox Christians will give you four different answers. If you're intersted,  here (http://www.incommunion.org/) is a publication about non-violence from an Orthodox perspective.
Title: Re: Orthodox view of the Armed Forces
Post by: Ortho_cat on March 18, 2012, 12:31:19 AM
You see that's a personal interpretation right there...
@orthocat

Why else do you think Jesus would tell his disciples to sell their cloaks and buy a sword? It's not like they lived in the jungle. The best case scenario for pacifism, it would advocate at least self defense.
Title: Re: Orthodox view of the Armed Forces
Post by: Opus118 on March 18, 2012, 12:32:12 AM
So what exactly is the an Orthodox view?

Yours and I agree with it.
Title: Re: Orthodox view of the Armed Forces
Post by: isaelie on March 18, 2012, 12:36:27 AM
Hey Opus118,

It's a tragedy that the others don't think so. I wish they did, not because 'It is my personal interpretation' but simply because it is the Truth.
Title: Re: Orthodox view of the Armed Forces
Post by: Ortho_cat on March 18, 2012, 12:39:52 AM
Hey Opus118,

It's a tragedy that the others don't think so. I wish they did, not because 'It is my personal interpretation' but simply because it is the Truth.

Some of us have witnessed firsthand some horrid things in this world (mass killings etc) that could have been prevented if one person would have brought "a sword" with them. I'm not for attacking, but I'm all about protecting life. Kill one violent criminal to save 50 innocent lives? You bet.
Title: Re: Orthodox view of the Armed Forces
Post by: Cognomen on March 18, 2012, 01:09:32 AM
Some of us have witnessed firsthand some horrid things in this world (mass killings etc) that could have been prevented if one person would have brought "a sword" with them. I'm not for attacking, but I'm all about protecting life. Kill one violent criminal to save 50 innocent lives? You bet.

What is the connection to Orthodox teaching?  You've simply made up a calculation.

I find this to be a very meaningful question, and I hope we can muster a bit better debate than:
"The Orthodox position is simple: if you're wearing a uniform, you can kill people. Jesus mentioned buying a sword."

What of jus in bello?  Haven't heard a peep of that.
Title: Re: Orthodox view of the Armed Forces
Post by: Luke on March 18, 2012, 01:13:17 AM
Also, there are many soldiers who have served and never fired a gun, outside of target practice.  Are they not allowed to work in order to support themselves and their families?
In all fairness to both sides, I suppose the same question could be asked of a stripper.
  can it?
Title: Re: Orthodox view of the Armed Forces
Post by: Luke on March 18, 2012, 01:15:44 AM
Also, there are many soldiers who have served and never fired a gun, outside of target practice.  Are they not allowed to work in order to support themselves and their families?
In all fairness to both sides, I suppose the same question could be asked of a stripper.
Can it?
Title: Re: Orthodox view of the Armed Forces
Post by: isaelie on March 18, 2012, 01:21:16 AM
Gamliel, if you're trying to justify war because it provides jobs - I will pray for you
Title: Re: Orthodox view of the Armed Forces
Post by: JamesRottnek on March 18, 2012, 01:25:50 AM
Also, there are many soldiers who have served and never fired a gun, outside of target practice.  Are they not allowed to work in order to support themselves and their families?
In all fairness to both sides, I suppose the same question could be asked of a stripper.

No, the better question to compare it to is this: Are management of strip clubs no allowed to work in order to support themselves and their families?
Title: Re: Orthodox view of the Armed Forces
Post by: JamesRottnek on March 18, 2012, 01:25:50 AM
You do realize that the OP asked for an Orthodox view of the armed forces?

You must have missed about 20% of the Orthodox Calendar...

What are you guys saying... I don't understand
Essentially, they're saying that what you say doesn't represent an Orthodox view and noting that the Church has many feasts celebrating military victory. Orthodox pacifism is a thing, but it's a minority position.

Not to mention those countless Orthodox Saints who were military heroes...
Title: Re: Orthodox view of the Armed Forces
Post by: JamesRottnek on March 18, 2012, 01:25:50 AM
The God of the OT certainly isn't a pacifist...

How dare you!  God is love!  Know you nothing at all!  All those stories of slaughtering massive numbers of Caananites at the orders of God are really just fables designed to express how God hates paganism.
Title: Re: Orthodox view of the Armed Forces
Post by: JamesRottnek on March 18, 2012, 01:25:50 AM
The God of the New Testament is

I am glad to meet you Marcion.  I've always wondered what it would be like to meet such a famous man from ancient times.
Title: Re: Orthodox view of the Armed Forces
Post by: JamesRottnek on March 18, 2012, 01:25:50 AM
Is the translation wrong?

No, the interpretation is.
Title: Re: Orthodox view of the Armed Forces
Post by: JamesRottnek on March 18, 2012, 01:25:50 AM
Hey Opus118,

It's a tragedy that the others don't think so. I wish they did, not because 'It is my personal interpretation' but simply because it is the Truth.

I wonder if Sts. King Alfred the Great, Demetrius of Thessaloniki, George, Sergius and Bacchus, Titus the Soldier of the Kiev Caves, Alexander Nevsky, and Theodore the Righteous Admiral of the Russian Naval Fleet, would have to say about that "Truth"?
Title: Re: Orthodox view of the Armed Forces
Post by: isaelie on March 18, 2012, 01:32:19 AM
I'm glad that we agree that God is love.

And LOL you call me Marcion - you took what i said out of context - you knew what i was trying to say (i hope).

So please answer my question JamesRottnek, what are you saying?? What is the true interpretation.. (I'm honest.. I just want to know what you think - or what you claim the Orthodox Church thinks)
Title: Re: Orthodox view of the Armed Forces
Post by: isaelie on March 18, 2012, 01:34:12 AM
Military heroes <------------- LOLOLOLOLOL

Title: Re: Orthodox view of the Armed Forces
Post by: Cognomen on March 18, 2012, 01:34:34 AM
I wonder if Sts. King Alfred the Great, Demetrius of Thessaloniki, George, Sergius and Bacchus, Titus the Soldier of the Kiev Caves, Alexander Nevsky, and Theodore the Righteous Admiral of the Russian Naval Fleet, would have to say about that "Truth"?

To be fair, some of the above, St. George most obviously, are not glorified as saints because of their body counts and tactical prowess. St. George was martyred because he refused to carry out military orders.

Again, I don't think it's as simple of an issue as either side is trying to make it.  To the OP question, yes, Orthodoxy is generally supportive of armed forces and prays for its members.  We pray for lots of people and things though.  
Title: Re: Orthodox view of the Armed Forces
Post by: isaelie on March 18, 2012, 01:36:47 AM
"To be fair, some of the above, St. George most obviously, are not glorified as saints because of their body counts and tactical prowess. St. George was martyred because he refused to carry out military orders."

AMEN

I'm going to go buy myself some explosives and become a 'military hero' because
by doing this, i win God's favour      <<<---------- LOLOLOL
Title: Re: Orthodox view of the Armed Forces
Post by: isaelie on March 18, 2012, 01:38:28 AM
It's like exalting St Mary of Egypt for being a good harlot
Title: Re: Orthodox view of the Armed Forces
Post by: Cognomen on March 18, 2012, 01:42:18 AM
"To be fair, some of the above, St. George most obviously, are not glorified as saints because of their body counts and tactical prowess. St. George was martyred because he refused to carry out military orders."

AMEN

I'm going to go buy myself some explosives and become a 'military hero' because
by doing this, i win God's favour      <<<---------- LOLOLOL

But at the same time, it's clear that saints have been glorified, in part, for their participation and/or success in the violent "defense of the faith."  Personally, I find some cases more compelling than others, and it's probably wrong that I question the validity of certain saints, but it happens.
Title: Re: Orthodox view of the Armed Forces
Post by: isaelie on March 18, 2012, 01:45:45 AM
But you and I know that the Defense of the Faith comes not from killing, but from this:
A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.

Anyways I have Church in about an hour and still got to do some study.

God bless
Title: Re: Orthodox view of the Armed Forces
Post by: dcommini on March 18, 2012, 01:53:26 AM
Military heroes <------------- LOLOLOLOLOL



I fail to find the humor here.
Title: Re: Orthodox view of the Armed Forces
Post by: PeterTheAleut on March 18, 2012, 02:04:45 AM
Gamliel, if you're trying to justify war because it provides jobs - I will pray for you
And how is this not an ad hominem?
Title: Re: Orthodox view of the Armed Forces
Post by: PeterTheAleut on March 18, 2012, 02:11:08 AM
You do realize that the OP asked for an Orthodox view of the armed forces?
What I'm saying is that I see no evidence to believe you're spouting anything more than your personal interpretation of the Gospel.
And, isaelie, your response to this was not to do anything to suggest that your view may be something more than just your own opinion--for instance, citing support for your position from the Fathers, councils, and liturgical witness of the Church. Instead, you chose to launch emotion-based attacks on those points of view that disagree with yours and on the persons who hold them.
Title: Re: Orthodox view of the Armed Forces
Post by: Gebre Menfes Kidus on March 18, 2012, 02:30:45 AM
Put your sword back in its place,” Jesus said to him, “for all who draw the sword will die by the sword. Do you think I cannot call on my Father, and he will at once put at my disposal more than twelve legions of angels?

You make me laugh Aindriu because you think I was saying that by not killing other people we are looking the other way. I love the 'sigh' as well as if your reply is one which speak the truth. You know when Jesus was there to rebuke St Peter, you should of been there to spit in his face and say 'You're wrong, we should slay all these soldiers.'

Or perhaps you should of been there to rebuke the LORD when he was telling Jonah:
“You have had pity on the plant for which you have not labored, nor made it grow, which came up in a night and perished in a night. And should I not pity Nineveh, that great city, in which are more than one hundred and twenty thousand persons who cannot discern between their right hand and their left—and much livestock?”

Or perhaps Jesus was fooling around when He said 'Love your enemy'. How can you kill the people Christ has died for? Are the people you are fighting not made in the image of God?

Which one is it sir?


Good points. I'm glad to see someone else making the same arguments for nonviolence that I often make. To err on the side of Life is never wrong. To presume that killing is justified for the Christian is a dangerous presumption that has horrific consequences. There is a way to preserve life and souls without violence and killing. But it means following Christ and not presuming to have better solutions than the ones Our Lord ordained for us.


Selam
Title: Re: Orthodox view of the Armed Forces
Post by: PeterTheAleut on March 18, 2012, 03:04:55 AM
Put your sword back in its place,” Jesus said to him, “for all who draw the sword will die by the sword. Do you think I cannot call on my Father, and he will at once put at my disposal more than twelve legions of angels?

You make me laugh Aindriu because you think I was saying that by not killing other people we are looking the other way. I love the 'sigh' as well as if your reply is one which speak the truth. You know when Jesus was there to rebuke St Peter, you should of been there to spit in his face and say 'You're wrong, we should slay all these soldiers.'

Or perhaps you should of been there to rebuke the LORD when he was telling Jonah:
“You have had pity on the plant for which you have not labored, nor made it grow, which came up in a night and perished in a night. And should I not pity Nineveh, that great city, in which are more than one hundred and twenty thousand persons who cannot discern between their right hand and their left—and much livestock?”

Or perhaps Jesus was fooling around when He said 'Love your enemy'. How can you kill the people Christ has died for? Are the people you are fighting not made in the image of God?

Which one is it sir?


Good points. I'm glad to see someone else making the same arguments for nonviolence that I often make. To err on the side of Life is never wrong. To presume that killing is justified for the Christian is a dangerous presumption that has horrific consequences. There is a way to preserve life and souls without violence and killing. But it means following Christ and not presuming to have better solutions than the ones Our Lord ordained for us.


Selam
So you praise her because she agrees with you? What evidence can you provide to suggest that you're not just spouting your own personal opinion?
Title: Re: Orthodox view of the Armed Forces
Post by: JamesRottnek on March 18, 2012, 03:59:44 AM
I'm glad that we agree that God is love.

And LOL you call me Marcion - you took what i said out of context - you knew what i was trying to say (i hope).

So please answer my question JamesRottnek, what are you saying?? What is the true interpretation.. (I'm honest.. I just want to know what you think - or what you claim the Orthodox Church thinks)

What you said was not out of context.  You contrasted Christ with the Father.  God's actions in the Old Testament are no less representative of what we should be doing than His actions in the New Testament.  The Church is not disjointed from Israel; it is Israel. 

As to what I think the correct interpretation is, well, when Christ says to turn the other cheek, I believe He is referring to personal insults.  When someone attacks our honor, when someone belittles us, we are not to react to it.  We are to accept it.  We are to humble ourselves, as He did.  However, that is quite a different matter than complete and total pacifism in the face of evil.  Let me ask you this: if you saw a man raping a little girl, would you try and stop him?  Would you use force to do so?  Would you call the police so that they could use force to do so?  If so, then I really don't understand how you can oppose any and all war.
Title: Re: Orthodox view of the Armed Forces
Post by: JamesRottnek on March 18, 2012, 03:59:44 AM
"To be fair, some of the above, St. George most obviously, are not glorified as saints because of their body counts and tactical prowess. St. George was martyred because he refused to carry out military orders."

AMEN

I'm going to go buy myself some explosives and become a 'military hero' because
by doing this, i win God's favour      <<<---------- LOLOLOL

But at the same time, it's clear that saints have been glorified, in part, for their participation and/or success in the violent "defense of the faith."  Personally, I find some cases more compelling than others, and it's probably wrong that I question the validity of certain saints, but it happens.

St. Alexander Nevsky, for instance, has had his military conquests supported by the Church.
Title: Re: Orthodox view of the Armed Forces
Post by: JamesRottnek on March 18, 2012, 03:59:44 AM
But you and I know that the Defense of the Faith comes not from killing, but from this:
A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.

Anyways I have Church in about an hour and still got to do some study.

God bless

Is it love to allow others to slaughter your children?
Title: Re: Orthodox view of the Armed Forces
Post by: JamesR on March 18, 2012, 06:02:52 AM
Jesus spoke at least on one occasion with a Roman centurion and did not rebuke him.
Title: Re: Orthodox view of the Armed Forces
Post by: Gebre Menfes Kidus on March 18, 2012, 06:14:11 AM
But you and I know that the Defense of the Faith comes not from killing, but from this:
A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.

Anyways I have Church in about an hour and still got to do some study.

God bless

Is it love to allow others to slaughter your children?

This is a false dichotomy that has already been addressed. Nonviolence does not mean nonresistance. There is a way to fight evil and defend one's children without killing. If our nonviolence results in our own death or the death of others, then we can be assured that God will recompense the evildoers and reward the innocent victims. God does not ask or command us to violently establish the justice belongs to Him alone.


Selam
Title: Re: Orthodox view of the Armed Forces
Post by: Gebre Menfes Kidus on March 18, 2012, 06:16:27 AM
Jesus spoke at least on one occasion with a Roman centurion and did not rebuke him.

Nor did He bless his military involvement. By your logic, we can also assume that prostitution and drunkeness are compatible with the Christian life since Our Lord spoke to harlots and drunkards without rebuking them.


Selam
Title: Re: Orthodox view of the Armed Forces
Post by: orthonorm on March 18, 2012, 06:20:40 AM
Gamliel, if you're trying to justify war because it provides jobs - I will pray for you
And how is this not an ad hominem?

You still don't know what those words mean after using them so often?
Title: Re: Orthodox view of the Armed Forces
Post by: orthonorm on March 18, 2012, 06:23:21 AM
we can also assume that prostitution and drunkeness are compatible with the Christian life since Our Lord spoke to harlots and drunkards without rebuking them.


Selam

And I read this AFTER St. Patrick's Day.
Title: Re: Orthodox view of the Armed Forces
Post by: Aindriú on March 18, 2012, 08:31:48 AM
But you and I know that the Defense of the Faith comes not from killing, but from this:
A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.

Anyways I have Church in about an hour and still got to do some study.

God bless

Is it love to allow others to slaughter your children?

This is a false dichotomy that has already been addressed. Nonviolence does not mean nonresistance. There is a way to fight evil and defend one's children without killing. If our nonviolence results in our own death or the death of others, then we can be assured that God will recompense the evildoers and reward the innocent victims. God does not ask or command us to violently establish the justice belongs to Him alone.


Selam

You also assume that a soldier's job is to kill. No, a soldier(and police) will use all means necessary to include killing. It just so happens those a soldier goes against intend to use weapons, otherwise they are captured.

You shouldn't want to kill. Killing is horrible. It's a taking of another life. I understand this. However, I also understand that life is so precious that it is worth defending, even to my own detriment.

Sometimes it takes more than a non-violent response. Let's think of scenarios where non-violence isn't enough. 'What if' it's not just you, a rapist, and a strange girl. What if it's a gang, you, and a strange girl? What if it's your family that will be on the receiving end of an aggressive person/group/army, and the only thing stopping it is you (maybe some friends, as well?). What if it's your friend beside you who's about to be shot as you're patrolling some rabid islamic desert trying to keep some semblance of law.

To allow something, is to accept it.
Title: Re: Orthodox view of the Armed Forces
Post by: Aindriú on March 18, 2012, 08:32:46 AM
Military heroes <------------- LOLOLOLOLOL
Response. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Z4m4lnjxkY)
Title: Re: Orthodox view of the Armed Forces
Post by: JamesRottnek on March 18, 2012, 08:38:41 AM
But you and I know that the Defense of the Faith comes not from killing, but from this:
A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.

Anyways I have Church in about an hour and still got to do some study.

God bless

Is it love to allow others to slaughter your children?

This is a false dichotomy that has already been addressed. Nonviolence does not mean nonresistance. There is a way to fight evil and defend one's children without killing. If our nonviolence results in our own death or the death of others, then we can be assured that God will recompense the evildoers and reward the innocent victims. God does not ask or command us to violently establish the justice belongs to Him alone.


Selam

What if the person has a gun?  What if that gun is pointed at your daughter, are you going to rush him and try to tackle him before he can fire it?  Suppose you have a gun, would you try and rush him, or would you put a bullet in his head?  And God sometimes does command people to establish justice, I recommend you read the Old Testament, where He commanded the Israelites to slaughter countless pagans.
Title: Re: Orthodox view of the Armed Forces
Post by: Asteriktos on March 18, 2012, 09:35:24 AM
It's one thing to turn your own cheek. It's another, to look the other way, when one recognizes evil.

Oh snap!
Title: Re: Orthodox view of the Armed Forces
Post by: Luke on March 18, 2012, 10:40:52 AM
But you and I know that the Defense of the Faith comes not from killing, but from this:
A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.

Anyways I have Church in about an hour and still got to do some study.

God bless

Is it love to allow others to slaughter your children?

This is a false dichotomy that has already been addressed. Nonviolence does not mean nonresistance. There is a way to fight evil and defend one's children without killing. If our nonviolence results in our own death or the death of others, then we can be assured that God will recompense the evildoers and reward the innocent victims. God does not ask or command us to violently establish the justice belongs to Him alone.


Selam

You also assume that a soldier's job is to kill. No, a soldier(and police) will use all means necessary to include killing. It just so happens those a soldier goes against intend to use weapons, otherwise they are captured.

You shouldn't want to kill. Killing is horrible. It's a taking of another life. I understand this. However, I also understand that life is so precious that it is worth defending, even to my own detriment.

Sometimes it takes more than a non-violent response. Let's think of scenarios where non-violence isn't enough. 'What if' it's not just you, a rapist, and a strange girl. What if it's a gang, you, and a strange girl? What if it's your family that will be on the receiving end of an aggressive person/group/army, and the only thing stopping it is you (maybe some friends, as well?). What if it's your friend beside you who's about to be shot as you're patrolling some rabid islamic desert trying to keep some semblance of law.

To allow something, is to accept it.
+++
Title: Re: Orthodox view of the Armed Forces
Post by: PeterTheAleut on March 18, 2012, 10:55:25 AM
Is there anyone here who can give an Orthodox view of the armed forces? ???
Title: Re: Orthodox view of the Armed Forces
Post by: dcommini on March 18, 2012, 11:13:18 AM
Is there anyone here who can give an Orthodox view of the armed forces? ???

From http://www.orthodoxanswers.org/answer/46/ (http://www.orthodoxanswers.org/answer/46/)
Quote
Question Number 46:

What is the Orthodox view on war and military service?

ANSWER: Orthodoxy takes in account the fullness of Biblical teaching, as well as the teachings of the Early Church Fathers, both pre and post Nicene. Orthodox Christianity views war and killing as sinful. In Orthodox canonical rules, soldiers who had to kill at war - which is recognized as unavoidable in certain cases - are subject to penance. Orthodox Clergy are never allowed to take part in warfare, and the fact that Latin clergy were soldiers at the times of the Crusades was especially intolerable to the Orthodox.

A useful quote from from Moscow Defense Brief: Perhaps the most remarkable and culturally relevant illustration of the Orthodox attitude towards war is contained in the history of the life of St. Sergius of Radonezh, who blessed Prince Dmitry Donskoy to engage the enemy in the famous battle of Kullikovskaya. According to his Life, prior to marching off to fight the Tartar Khan Mamay, Prince Dmitry visited Abbot Sergius at the Troitskaya Monastery, now known as the Trinity St. Sergius Lavra. There the abbot did not immediately bless the prince for the coming battle, but first inquired of the prince if he had tried "to please that obnoxious Mamay with gifts or favor." (Luke 14:31) And only Question Number 46:

What is the Orthodox view on war and military service?

ANSWER: Orthodoxy takes in account the fullness of Biblical teaching, as well as the teachings of the Early Church Fathers, both pre and post Nicene. Orthodox Christianity views war and killing as sinful. In Orthodox canonical rules, soldiers who had to kill at war - which is recognized as unavoidable in certain cases - are subject to penance. Orthodox Clergy are never allowed to take part in warfare, and the fact that Latin clergy were soldiers at the times of the Crusades was especially intolerable to the Orthodox.

A useful quote from from Moscow Defense Brief: Perhaps the most remarkable and culturally relevant illustration of the Orthodox attitude towards war is contained in the history of the life of St. Sergius of Radonezh, who blessed Prince Dmitry Donskoy to engage the enemy in the famous battle of Kullikovskaya. According to his Life, prior to marching off to fight the Tartar Khan Mamay, Prince Dmitry visited Abbot Sergius at the Troitskaya Monastery, now known as the Trinity St. Sergius Lavra. There the abbot did not immediately bless the prince for the coming battle, but first inquired of the prince if he had tried "to please that obnoxious Mamay with gifts or favor." (Luke 14:31) And only when the prince confirmed that he had taken all possible measures so as to conciliate this warlike and yet inexorable Khan did St. Sergius give his blessing. when the prince confirmed that he had taken all possible measures so as to conciliate this warlike and yet inexorable Khan did St. Sergius give his blessing.


Notice it mentions killing, but not serving in the military...
Title: Re: Orthodox view of the Armed Forces
Post by: dcommini on March 18, 2012, 11:18:20 AM
Also, from http://www.stgeorgecathedral.net/article_0103.html (http://www.stgeorgecathedral.net/article_0103.html)

Quote
Peace and War in The Eastern Orthodox Church Part 2 of 2 Part 1 From the January 2003 "Messenger"

How can these seemingly opposite emphases co-exist in the Orthodox Christian tradition? Perhaps it can be best understood by the unique applications of “akrievia” and “economia” in Orthodox ethics and canon law. “Akrievia” represents the strict application of the gospel principles embodied in canon law. “Economia” is a dispensation from this strict requirement in view of human weakness and the compromising circumstances of life in a fallen world. Perhaps divorce provides a good example. According to “akrievia,” the norm is one marriage for life, and divorce and remarriage constitutes adultery. This is a direct word of the Lord. Nonetheless, the Orthodox Church blesses the remarriage of divorced persons in various circumstances as an act of mercy, knowing the frailties of our fallen nature and the difficult situations of life. Simultaneously, the norm is upheld and there is an accommodation to the realities of fallen world - a concept and practice that may seem contradictory to Western Christians. Similarly, peace is the norm and goal of Christian life for all. In its very nature, it embodies the gospel of the kingdom. War by nature is a manifestation of sin, and therefore, can never be “just.” War is to be avoided at all costs, and the peaceful resolution of human conflicts is to be pursued without limitation. However, there are occasions when the peaceful resolution of conflict is in fact impossible. Such is the case when a hostile enemy attacks, and would deprive peace-loving Christian citizens of life and liberty. In such situations, a pacifistic position may indeed attract and beget violence because of its public refusal to defend even the innocent against violence and murder.

Orthodox Christians do indeed undertake warfare in such situations, but purely as a “necessary evil.” It is necessary because the innocent and good must be protected; it is evil because such protection involves the taking of human life, which by all accounts, is among the most terrible of crimes.

The Orthodox Church therefore is not pacifistic, although it in practices encourages governments always to pursue the “preferential option for peace.” Nonetheless, the Church recognizes that this world is fallen and is not yet equivalent to the kingdom of God. For this reason, governments in general cannot be held to the strict requirements of the gospel. Although under God’s authority, they belong to the fallen world. At times statesmanship fails, and Christians are called by their governments to defend their commonwealth by means of war, for to fail to do so would result in an increase in the measure of evil in the world.

This does not mean that war can be “just.” It may serve a just cause, but war itself is unjust by nature. The Orthodox Church therefore has never elaborated a theory of “just war.” For Orthodox Christians, “just war” is a contradiction in terms.

Again, more about war than military service.
Title: Re: Orthodox view of the Armed Forces
Post by: Ortho_cat on March 18, 2012, 01:27:26 PM
To Thee, our Captain, Queen of war, the battle trophies
won,
Thy people rescued by thine aid from peril, dedicate as
our offering of thanksgiving, O Theotokos,
As thou hast might which none by war can overcome,
From all forms of danger hast thou delivered me, that
I may cry unto thee:
Hail, O virgin unwedded bride.
Title: Re: Orthodox view of the Armed Forces
Post by: Luke on March 18, 2012, 03:12:51 PM
Do Orthodox priests serve as military chaplains?
Title: Re: Orthodox view of the Armed Forces
Post by: dcommini on March 18, 2012, 03:22:11 PM
Do Orthodox priests serve as military chaplains?

Yes they do, in fact one came over from Germany to attend of of his parents funerals and visited my parish while back in the States. He preached a great homily on marrîage.
Also, the St. George Military Association lists a few orthodox chaplains on their website.
Title: Re: Orthodox view of the Armed Forces
Post by: Schultz on March 18, 2012, 03:56:56 PM
Do Orthodox priests serve as military chaplains?

My pastor is a retired military chaplain.  We also have another retired military chaplain who concelebrates when he's not needed elsewhere in the area as a "fill-in" priest.  Until recently, we had yet another military chaplain serving on most Sundays when he was stationed at a nearby US Army base, but he has since been reassigned.
Title: Re: Orthodox view of the Armed Forces
Post by: isaelie on March 18, 2012, 04:23:57 PM
"The Orthodox Church therefore is not pacifistic, although it in practices encourages governments always to pursue the “preferential option for peace.” Nonetheless, the Church recognizes that this world is fallen and is not yet equivalent to the kingdom of God. For this reason, governments in general cannot be held to the strict requirements of the gospel. Although under God’s authority, they belong to the fallen world. At times statesmanship fails, and Christians are called by their governments to defend their commonwealth by means of war, for to fail to do so would result in an increase in the measure of evil in the world."

Whoever wrote this does not know the LORD.
I'm finished here. Goodbye - I've gotten my point across but no matter what I and Gebre Menfes Kidus say your hearts are so hardened - you will find anything to excuse the Love that God calls us to have.

Title: Re: Orthodox view of the Armed Forces
Post by: Asteriktos on March 18, 2012, 04:27:41 PM
Whoever wrote this does not know the LORD.
I'm finished here. Goodbye - I've gotten my point across but no matter what I and Gebre Menfes Kidus say your hearts are so hardened - you will find anything to excuse the Love that God calls us to have.

While you're spiritually discerning the condition of people's souls, could you give me a reading as well? Thanks!
Title: Re: Orthodox view of the Armed Forces
Post by: Melodist on March 18, 2012, 04:35:51 PM
Is there anyone here who can give an Orthodox view of the armed forces? ???

Experience is knowledge. Perhaps one could pray to and ask any of our saints known for their military service, many martyrs of which served more than honorably under the rule of a non-Christian government while maintaining their faith in Christ and converting those around them, even converting at their martyrdom those who were present to see their martyrdom.

I think you know the answer to your own question though, but maybe it needed to be said. A man can have no greater love than to lay down his life.

Semper Fi.
Title: Re: Orthodox view of the Armed Forces
Post by: Ortho_cat on March 18, 2012, 04:39:54 PM
"The Orthodox Church therefore is not pacifistic, although it in practices encourages governments always to pursue the “preferential option for peace.” Nonetheless, the Church recognizes that this world is fallen and is not yet equivalent to the kingdom of God. For this reason, governments in general cannot be held to the strict requirements of the gospel. Although under God’s authority, they belong to the fallen world. At times statesmanship fails, and Christians are called by their governments to defend their commonwealth by means of war, for to fail to do so would result in an increase in the measure of evil in the world."

Whoever wrote this does not know the LORD.
I'm finished here. Goodbye - I've gotten my point across but no matter what I and Gebre Menfes Kidus say your hearts are so hardened - you will find anything to excuse the Love that God calls us to have.





rather judgmental and arrogant to say that this person who wrote this doesn't know the Lord, (thereby implying that you do), isn't it?
Title: Re: Orthodox view of the Armed Forces
Post by: Ortho_cat on March 18, 2012, 04:45:56 PM
Whoever wrote this does not know the LORD.
I'm finished here. Goodbye - I've gotten my point across but no matter what I and Gebre Menfes Kidus say your hearts are so hardened - you will find anything to excuse the Love that God calls us to have.

While you're spiritually discerning the condition of people's souls, could you give me a reading as well? Thanks!

(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-I8jx0ssknJc/TgKkuD6_96I/AAAAAAAAA8c/jbg8X-dCAUU/s1600/magic8ball.jpg)
Title: Re: Orthodox view of the Armed Forces
Post by: PeterTheAleut on March 18, 2012, 05:42:52 PM
"The Orthodox Church therefore is not pacifistic, although it in practices encourages governments always to pursue the “preferential option for peace.” Nonetheless, the Church recognizes that this world is fallen and is not yet equivalent to the kingdom of God. For this reason, governments in general cannot be held to the strict requirements of the gospel. Although under God’s authority, they belong to the fallen world. At times statesmanship fails, and Christians are called by their governments to defend their commonwealth by means of war, for to fail to do so would result in an increase in the measure of evil in the world."

Whoever wrote this does not know the LORD.
I'm finished here. Goodbye - I've gotten my point across but no matter what I and Gebre Menfes Kidus say your hearts are so hardened - you will find anything to excuse the Love that God calls us to have.


Which brings me back to what I said before:

You do realize that the OP asked for an Orthodox view of the armed forces?
What I'm saying is that I see no evidence to believe you're spouting anything more than your personal interpretation of the Gospel.
And, isaelie, your response to this was not to do anything to suggest that your view may be something more than just your own opinion--for instance, citing support for your position from the Fathers, councils, and liturgical witness of the Church. Instead, you chose to launch emotion-based attacks on those points of view that disagree with yours and on the persons who hold them.

Can you cite those patristic, conciliar, and liturgical authorities that support your pacifist interpretation of the Gospel, or would you rather just assume that you have a line of direct, private revelation from God and that those who disagree with you must not know the LORD and have hardened their hearts against Him?
Title: Re: Orthodox view of the Armed Forces
Post by: isaelie on March 18, 2012, 05:45:25 PM
Peter, what would you like me to cite? I've cited the words of our Lord Himself, look at my previous posts
Title: Re: Orthodox view of the Armed Forces
Post by: Asteriktos on March 18, 2012, 05:49:23 PM
I've cited the words of our Lord Himself,

And conveniently ignored the other parts of the Gospels mentioned which contradict what you think  ;)
Title: Re: Orthodox view of the Armed Forces
Post by: Asteriktos on March 18, 2012, 05:50:22 PM
Whoever wrote this does not know the LORD.
I'm finished here. Goodbye - I've gotten my point across but no matter what I and Gebre Menfes Kidus say your hearts are so hardened - you will find anything to excuse the Love that God calls us to have.

While you're spiritually discerning the condition of people's souls, could you give me a reading as well? Thanks!

(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-I8jx0ssknJc/TgKkuD6_96I/AAAAAAAAA8c/jbg8X-dCAUU/s1600/magic8ball.jpg)

You have no idea how close you are hitting to how my spiritual life goes most days. Or maybe you do.  ;D
Title: Re: Orthodox view of the Armed Forces
Post by: PeterTheAleut on March 18, 2012, 05:55:08 PM
Peter, what would you like me to cite? I've cited the words of our Lord Himself, look at my previous posts
Yes, anyone can cite the words of our Lord to support any teaching they want--the heretics do that all the time to support their false doctrines. What you need to do is cite those authorities--e.g., the Fathers, councils, liturgical traditions, ascetics, etc.--that represent the way we Orthodox have traditionally understood the words of our Lord.
Title: Re: Orthodox view of the Armed Forces
Post by: isaelie on March 18, 2012, 05:55:51 PM
Asteriktos, it seems you don't really care about what we are discussing here, and are just in it for the jokes or somewhat
Or perhaps it is your interpretation that i've added my own interpretation. Can Christ contradict Himself? Which other part of the Gospel does it mention Christ telling others to grab their swords and start chopping each other's heads off?
Or did i miss a bit?
Or am i reading the wrong Gospel?
Or is your only excuse that my interpretation is wrong?
Title: Re: Orthodox view of the Armed Forces
Post by: isaelie on March 18, 2012, 05:57:44 PM
Yes Peter,
but it's like discussing that God isn't Love
And when Jesus said, It has been said 'Eye for Eye'... But i tell you do not resist an evil person. What more can be said?? Isn't it clear enough
Title: Re: Orthodox view of the Armed Forces
Post by: PeterTheAleut on March 18, 2012, 06:00:05 PM
Asteriktos, it seems you don't really care about what we are discussing here, and are just in it for the jokes or somewhat
... and stop casting aspersions on the character and motives of those who disagree with you...

Or perhaps it is your interpretation that i've added my own interpretation. Can Christ contradict Himself? Which other part of the Gospel does it mention Christ telling others to grab their swords and start chopping each other's heads off?
... and stop resorting to absurd representations of those opinions that disagree with yours...
Title: Re: Orthodox view of the Armed Forces
Post by: Aindriú on March 18, 2012, 06:00:13 PM
Are you single?
Title: Re: Orthodox view of the Armed Forces
Post by: PeterTheAleut on March 18, 2012, 06:10:07 PM
Yes Peter,
but it's like discussing that God isn't Love
And when Jesus said, It has been said 'Eye for Eye'... But i tell you do not resist an evil person. What more can be said?? Isn't it clear enough
The OP asked for an Orthodox understanding of military service. All you've done is give us your interpretation of what the Gospel says about the subject. That isn't what the OP requested, so I offered some advice on how you can show that your understanding is Orthodox. Rather than follow my advice, you chose to argue with my suggestion that what you've presented thus far is insufficient.

I've seen and heard many Orthodox voice the pacifist opinions you voice. I'm even aware of an Orthodox Peace Fellowship that advocates pacifism based on what they see as the mandate of the Gospel. I'm quite aware that many draw support for their pacifism from the doctrine and practice of the Orthodox Christian faith, just as you do. I don't have a problem with that. What I have a problem with is you coming to our discussion forum to preach your particularly pacifist interpretation of the Gospel, resist any attempts to elicit from you support for your position from the Fathers, councils and liturgical witness of the Church, and condemn those who disagree with you.
Title: Re: Orthodox view of the Armed Forces
Post by: PeterTheAleut on March 18, 2012, 06:10:55 PM
Are you single?
Of whom are you asking this question?
Title: Re: Orthodox view of the Armed Forces
Post by: bishoy on March 18, 2012, 07:04:15 PM
I'm not personally advocating for the pacifistic point of view, but I am aware that there are several sayings from the Early Church Fathers which CAN be used to support such a viewpoint. Since y'all are asking for evidence, here is some:

Saint Justin Martyr:
 
“The devil is the author of all war.”  “We, who used to kill one another, do not make war on our enemies. We refuse to tell lies or deceive our inquisitors; we prefer to die acknowledging Christ.”

Tertullian:

“But now inquiry is being made concerning these issues. First, can any believer enlist in the military? Second, can any soldier, even those of the rank and file or lesser grades who neither engage in pagan sacrifices nor capital punishment, be admitted into the church? No on both counts—for there is no agreement between the divine sacrament and the human sacrament, the standard of Christ and the standard of the devil, the camp of light and the camp of darkness. One soul cannot serve two masters—God and Caesar…But how will a Christian engage in war—indeed, how will a Christian even engage in military service during peacetime—without the sword, which the Lord has taken away? For although soldiers had approached John to receive instructions and a centurion believed, this does not change the fact that afterward, the Lord, by disarming Peter, disarmed every soldier.”  

“Under no circumstances should a true Christian draw the sword.”

Hippolytus of Rome:

"“A soldier, being inferior in rank to God, must not kill anyone. If ordered to, he must not carry out the order, nor may he take an oath (sacramentum) to do so. If he does not accept this, let him be dismissed from the church. Anyone bearing the power of the sword, or any city magistrate, who wears purple, let him cease from wearing it at once or be dismissed from the church. Any catechumen or believer who wishes to become a soldier must be dismissed from the church because they have despised God.”


Saint Irenaeus:

"“Christians have changed their swords and their lances into instruments of peace, and they know not now how to fight.”

Saint Cyprian:

[Christians] are not allowed to kill, but they must be ready to be put to death themselves… it is not permitted the guiltless to put even the guilty to death.” “God wished iron to be used for the cultivation of the earth, and therefore it should not be used to take human life.


The source from which I draw these is, regrettably, this blog:

http://rogueminister.wordpress.com/2008/11/19/quotes-the-early-church-on-war-and-violence/

All it took was a simple Google search to find this. There are many more quotes from that blog which supports some kind of view of pacifism.

Ignoring the source and just taking the quotes for what they are, we at least now have evidence for a pacifistic argument.

Title: Re: Orthodox view of the Armed Forces
Post by: Asteriktos on March 18, 2012, 07:11:07 PM
Asteriktos, it seems you don't really care about what we are discussing here, and are just in it for the jokes or somewhat
Or perhaps it is your interpretation that i've added my own interpretation. Can Christ contradict Himself? Which other part of the Gospel does it mention Christ telling others to grab their swords and start chopping each other's heads off?
Or did i miss a bit?
Or am i reading the wrong Gospel?
Or is your only excuse that my interpretation is wrong?


I take this stuff very seriously. It's the people I don't take seriously--myself included--because 99% of the time people have no clue what they're talking about  :police:
Title: Re: Orthodox view of the Armed Forces
Post by: PeterTheAleut on March 18, 2012, 07:13:58 PM
I'm not personally advocating for the pacifistic point of view, but I am aware that there are several sayings from the Early Church Fathers which CAN be used to support such a viewpoint. Since y'all are asking for evidence, here is some:

Saint Justin Martyr:
 
“The devil is the author of all war.”  “We, who used to kill one another, do not make war on our enemies. We refuse to tell lies or deceive our inquisitors; we prefer to die acknowledging Christ.”

Tertullian:

“But now inquiry is being made concerning these issues. First, can any believer enlist in the military? Second, can any soldier, even those of the rank and file or lesser grades who neither engage in pagan sacrifices nor capital punishment, be admitted into the church? No on both counts—for there is no agreement between the divine sacrament and the human sacrament, the standard of Christ and the standard of the devil, the camp of light and the camp of darkness. One soul cannot serve two masters—God and Caesar…But how will a Christian engage in war—indeed, how will a Christian even engage in military service during peacetime—without the sword, which the Lord has taken away? For although soldiers had approached John to receive instructions and a centurion believed, this does not change the fact that afterward, the Lord, by disarming Peter, disarmed every soldier.”  

“Under no circumstances should a true Christian draw the sword.”

Hippolytus of Rome:

"“A soldier, being inferior in rank to God, must not kill anyone. If ordered to, he must not carry out the order, nor may he take an oath (sacramentum) to do so. If he does not accept this, let him be dismissed from the church. Anyone bearing the power of the sword, or any city magistrate, who wears purple, let him cease from wearing it at once or be dismissed from the church. Any catechumen or believer who wishes to become a soldier must be dismissed from the church because they have despised God.”


Saint Irenaeus:

"“Christians have changed their swords and their lances into instruments of peace, and they know not now how to fight.”

Saint Cyprian:

[Christians] are not allowed to kill, but they must be ready to be put to death themselves… it is not permitted the guiltless to put even the guilty to death.” “God wished iron to be used for the cultivation of the earth, and therefore it should not be used to take human life.


The source from which I draw these is, regrettably, this blog:

http://rogueminister.wordpress.com/2008/11/19/quotes-the-early-church-on-war-and-violence/

All it took was a simple Google search to find this. There are many more quotes from that blog which supports some kind of view of pacifism.

Ignoring the source and just taking the quotes for what they are, we at least now have evidence for a pacifistic argument.


Would you please post bibliographical references to the works you're citing so we can cross-reference them for ourselves? Thank you.

Okay, I see that you've at least posted a link to the site where you got these. I think that will be sufficient.
Title: Re: Orthodox view of the Armed Forces
Post by: Aindriú on March 18, 2012, 08:04:59 PM
Are you single?
Of whom are you asking this question?

Isaelie.

I'm curious, if someone violently anti-violence has anyone that she'd be willing to sacrifice in her quest for non-involvement.
Title: Re: Orthodox view of the Armed Forces
Post by: Gebre Menfes Kidus on March 18, 2012, 08:49:28 PM
But you and I know that the Defense of the Faith comes not from killing, but from this:
A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.

Anyways I have Church in about an hour and still got to do some study.

God bless

Is it love to allow others to slaughter your children?

This is a false dichotomy that has already been addressed. Nonviolence does not mean nonresistance. There is a way to fight evil and defend one's children without killing. If our nonviolence results in our own death or the death of others, then we can be assured that God will recompense the evildoers and reward the innocent victims. God does not ask or command us to violently establish the justice belongs to Him alone.


Selam

What if the person has a gun?  What if that gun is pointed at your daughter, are you going to rush him and try to tackle him before he can fire it?  Suppose you have a gun, would you try and rush him, or would you put a bullet in his head?  And God sometimes does command people to establish justice, I recommend you read the Old Testament, where He commanded the Israelites to slaughter countless pagans.

I am familiar with the Old Testament. Do we still sacrifice bulls and goats to atone for sins? Do we still stone disobedient children? Why do the advocates of violence selectively appeal to the Old Testament in this one regard while adhering to the New Testament in all others?


Selam
Title: Re: Orthodox view of the Armed Forces
Post by: Cognomen on March 18, 2012, 08:52:38 PM
Thank you, Bishoy, for actually providing Orthodox views from the Holy Fathers.  

I think this should sufficiently challenge the notion that this is a simple, 'we're for it!' situation.

Title: Re: Orthodox view of the Armed Forces
Post by: orthonorm on March 18, 2012, 08:53:23 PM
But you and I know that the Defense of the Faith comes not from killing, but from this:
A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.

Anyways I have Church in about an hour and still got to do some study.

God bless

Is it love to allow others to slaughter your children?

This is a false dichotomy that has already been addressed. Nonviolence does not mean nonresistance. There is a way to fight evil and defend one's children without killing. If our nonviolence results in our own death or the death of others, then we can be assured that God will recompense the evildoers and reward the innocent victims. God does not ask or command us to violently establish the justice belongs to Him alone.


Selam

What if the person has a gun?  What if that gun is pointed at your daughter, are you going to rush him and try to tackle him before he can fire it?  Suppose you have a gun, would you try and rush him, or would you put a bullet in his head?  And God sometimes does command people to establish justice, I recommend you read the Old Testament, where He commanded the Israelites to slaughter countless pagans.

I am familiar with the Old Testament. Do we still sacrifice bulls and goats to atone for sins? Do we still stone disobedient children? Why do the advocates of violence selectively appeal to the Old Testament in this one regard while adhering to the New Testament in all others?


Selam

Cause they would have to die if they didn't. Or at least go to prison.
Title: Re: Orthodox view of the Armed Forces
Post by: Aindriú on March 18, 2012, 08:53:36 PM
But you and I know that the Defense of the Faith comes not from killing, but from this:
A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.

Anyways I have Church in about an hour and still got to do some study.

God bless

Is it love to allow others to slaughter your children?

This is a false dichotomy that has already been addressed. Nonviolence does not mean nonresistance. There is a way to fight evil and defend one's children without killing. If our nonviolence results in our own death or the death of others, then we can be assured that God will recompense the evildoers and reward the innocent victims. God does not ask or command us to violently establish the justice belongs to Him alone.


Selam

What if the person has a gun?  What if that gun is pointed at your daughter, are you going to rush him and try to tackle him before he can fire it?  Suppose you have a gun, would you try and rush him, or would you put a bullet in his head?  And God sometimes does command people to establish justice, I recommend you read the Old Testament, where He commanded the Israelites to slaughter countless pagans.

I am familiar with the Old Testament. Do we still sacrifice bulls and goats to atone for sins? Do we still stone disobedient children? Why do the advocates of violence selectively appeal to the Old Testament in this one regard while adhering to the New Testament in all others?


Selam

For balance. Because pure pacifism requires one to disengage from society entirely. A logical conclusion would allow an Anarchy where bad men are allowed to roam free.
Title: Re: Orthodox view of the Armed Forces
Post by: PeterTheAleut on March 18, 2012, 08:55:54 PM
I'm not personally advocating for the pacifistic point of view, but I am aware that there are several sayings from the Early Church Fathers which CAN be used to support such a viewpoint. Since y'all are asking for evidence, here is some:

Saint Justin Martyr:
 
“The devil is the author of all war.”  “We, who used to kill one another, do not make war on our enemies. We refuse to tell lies or deceive our inquisitors; we prefer to die acknowledging Christ.”

Tertullian:

“But now inquiry is being made concerning these issues. First, can any believer enlist in the military? Second, can any soldier, even those of the rank and file or lesser grades who neither engage in pagan sacrifices nor capital punishment, be admitted into the church? No on both counts—for there is no agreement between the divine sacrament and the human sacrament, the standard of Christ and the standard of the devil, the camp of light and the camp of darkness. One soul cannot serve two masters—God and Caesar…But how will a Christian engage in war—indeed, how will a Christian even engage in military service during peacetime—without the sword, which the Lord has taken away? For although soldiers had approached John to receive instructions and a centurion believed, this does not change the fact that afterward, the Lord, by disarming Peter, disarmed every soldier.”  

“Under no circumstances should a true Christian draw the sword.”

Hippolytus of Rome:

"“A soldier, being inferior in rank to God, must not kill anyone. If ordered to, he must not carry out the order, nor may he take an oath (sacramentum) to do so. If he does not accept this, let him be dismissed from the church. Anyone bearing the power of the sword, or any city magistrate, who wears purple, let him cease from wearing it at once or be dismissed from the church. Any catechumen or believer who wishes to become a soldier must be dismissed from the church because they have despised God.”


Saint Irenaeus:

"“Christians have changed their swords and their lances into instruments of peace, and they know not now how to fight.”

Saint Cyprian:

[Christians] are not allowed to kill, but they must be ready to be put to death themselves… it is not permitted the guiltless to put even the guilty to death.” “God wished iron to be used for the cultivation of the earth, and therefore it should not be used to take human life.


The source from which I draw these is, regrettably, this blog:

http://rogueminister.wordpress.com/2008/11/19/quotes-the-early-church-on-war-and-violence/

All it took was a simple Google search to find this. There are many more quotes from that blog which supports some kind of view of pacifism.

Ignoring the source and just taking the quotes for what they are, we at least now have evidence for a pacifistic argument.


BTW, thanks for posting this, for this is what I was looking for.
Title: Re: Orthodox view of the Armed Forces
Post by: orthonorm on March 18, 2012, 09:01:55 PM
But you and I know that the Defense of the Faith comes not from killing, but from this:
A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.

Anyways I have Church in about an hour and still got to do some study.

God bless

Is it love to allow others to slaughter your children?

This is a false dichotomy that has already been addressed. Nonviolence does not mean nonresistance. There is a way to fight evil and defend one's children without killing. If our nonviolence results in our own death or the death of others, then we can be assured that God will recompense the evildoers and reward the innocent victims. God does not ask or command us to violently establish the justice belongs to Him alone.


Selam

What if the person has a gun?  What if that gun is pointed at your daughter, are you going to rush him and try to tackle him before he can fire it?  Suppose you have a gun, would you try and rush him, or would you put a bullet in his head?  And God sometimes does command people to establish justice, I recommend you read the Old Testament, where He commanded the Israelites to slaughter countless pagans.

I am familiar with the Old Testament. Do we still sacrifice bulls and goats to atone for sins? Do we still stone disobedient children? Why do the advocates of violence selectively appeal to the Old Testament in this one regard while adhering to the New Testament in all others?


Selam

For balance. Because pure pacifism requires one to disengage from society entirely. A logical conclusion would allow an Anarchy where bad men are allowed to roam free.

Quote from: Revelations 21 - KJV
10And he saith unto me, Seal not the sayings of the prophecy of this book: for the time is at hand. 11He that is unjust, let him be unjust still: and he which is filthy, let him be filthy still: and he that is righteous, let him be righteous still: and he that is holy, let him be holy still.

12And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be. 13I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last.
Title: Re: Orthodox view of the Armed Forces
Post by: Cognomen on March 18, 2012, 09:06:23 PM
You also assume that a soldier's job is to kill. No, a soldier(and police) will use all means necessary to include killing. It just so happens those a soldier goes against intend to use weapons, otherwise they are captured.

You shouldn't want to kill. Killing is horrible. It's a taking of another life. I understand this. However, I also understand that life is so precious that it is worth defending, even to my own detriment.

Have you spent a lot of time with infantry/SOCOM/Intl SF folks?  Let's not pretend that actual combat isn't killing and blowing stuff up.

Part of the distinction arises from modern, bureaucratic armed forces, which are filled with non-combat roles, disparagingly referred to as pogs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pogue) (pogues) by US combat units.

I think the quotes from bishoy speak to your point though.  The opinions of the Fathers cited indicate that serving is not necessarily a problem, but killing is an issue.  This also indicates that Christ's words were not some metaphor to be discounted.  I'm pretty sure he wants us to help poor, sick, and imprisoned folks too.  Or do we Orthodox have a tradition that indicates otherwise?
Title: Re: Orthodox view of the Armed Forces
Post by: Gebre Menfes Kidus on March 18, 2012, 09:19:23 PM
But you and I know that the Defense of the Faith comes not from killing, but from this:
A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.

Anyways I have Church in about an hour and still got to do some study.

God bless

Is it love to allow others to slaughter your children?

This is a false dichotomy that has already been addressed. Nonviolence does not mean nonresistance. There is a way to fight evil and defend one's children without killing. If our nonviolence results in our own death or the death of others, then we can be assured that God will recompense the evildoers and reward the innocent victims. God does not ask or command us to violently establish the justice belongs to Him alone.


Selam


Sometimes it takes more than a non-violent response. Let's think of scenarios where non-violence isn't enough. 'What if' it's not just you, a rapist, and a strange girl. What if it's a gang, you, and a strange girl? What if it's your family that will be on the receiving end of an aggressive person/group/army, and the only thing stopping it is you (maybe some friends, as well?). What if it's your friend beside you who's about to be shot as you're patrolling some rabid islamic desert trying to keep some semblance of law.

To allow something, is to accept it.


I appreciate the sincere and important question. Any serious advocate of nonviolence must honestly wrestle with these issues and consider the consequences and ramifications of such a philosophy. One thing is an indisputable fact: neither pacifism, militarism, or any "just war" theory will eradicate evil and establish a pacific utopia on earth. Therefore, our duty as Christians is to wed ourselves to the most Christ-like means of addressing injustices and dealing with the sins and complexities of a fallen world. And I myself dare not presume to reinterpret the message and example of Our Lord in order to justify my own subjective rationale for violence.

One other thing I must also point out, and I do so respectfully but forthrightly. If anyone condemns pacifism as "allowing and accepting evil" then they condemn Christ Our Lord Himself. Surely Christ knew that His disciples would face violent and unjust deaths at the hands of evil men. Surely He had the omnipotent capacity to stop such evil and injustice. But He didn't. So, if you condemn pacifists for allowing the innocent to be killed, then you condemn Our Lord as well. You can try to rationalize it by talking about the Cross being a specific mission to atone for the sins of the world - which indeed it was - but the nonviolent actions of Christ still resulted in the deaths of His disciples. However, we know the rest of the story. We know that their deaths were not in vain. In fact, as Tertullian said, "The blood of the martyrs is the seed of the Church." Therefore, by faith, we too must trust that God is ultimately in control and that whatever results from our nonviolent actions is not in vain.

What are we to make of the millions upon millions of innocent unborn babies who are slaughtered because nobody takes up the sword to save them? Are their short lives and tragic deaths in vain? Are they forsaken by God? Should we take up arms and begin shooting abortionists and bombing abortion clinics? Well, I say unequivocally "NO!" But I also say that if anyone thinks that violence is ever justified and necessary, then most certainly it would be justifiable to use it in defense of the unborn, "the least of these." But I have noticed that those who believe in justifiable violence seem more concerned with preserving violence for themselves and their own families while eschewing it as a means of defending those with whom they have nothing to do. I have more respect for a Paul Hill who used violence to rescue the innocent victims of his own country than for those who scorn the unborn yet travel half way across the world to kill their fellow man in the name of a nation that allows the slaughter of its own innocents.


"In peace let us pray to the Lord."


Selam
Title: Re: Orthodox view of the Armed Forces
Post by: Sauron on March 18, 2012, 09:28:19 PM
Put your sword back in its place,” Jesus said to him, “for all who draw the sword will die by the sword. Do you think I cannot call on my Father, and he will at once put at my disposal more than twelve legions of angels?

Note that He did not say "don't serve in the military". Note also that in His several conversations with Roman soldiers, He never tells them to quit the army. In fact, overall, Roman soldiers get far better treatment in the Gospels than, say, the Pharisees.
Title: Re: Orthodox view of the Armed Forces
Post by: Gebre Menfes Kidus on March 18, 2012, 09:29:17 PM
But you and I know that the Defense of the Faith comes not from killing, but from this:
A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.

Anyways I have Church in about an hour and still got to do some study.

God bless

Is it love to allow others to slaughter your children?

This is a false dichotomy that has already been addressed. Nonviolence does not mean nonresistance. There is a way to fight evil and defend one's children without killing. If our nonviolence results in our own death or the death of others, then we can be assured that God will recompense the evildoers and reward the innocent victims. God does not ask or command us to violently establish the justice belongs to Him alone.


Selam

What if the person has a gun?  What if that gun is pointed at your daughter, are you going to rush him and try to tackle him before he can fire it?  Suppose you have a gun, would you try and rush him, or would you put a bullet in his head?  And God sometimes does command people to establish justice, I recommend you read the Old Testament, where He commanded the Israelites to slaughter countless pagans.

I am familiar with the Old Testament. Do we still sacrifice bulls and goats to atone for sins? Do we still stone disobedient children? Why do the advocates of violence selectively appeal to the Old Testament in this one regard while adhering to the New Testament in all others?


Selam

For balance. Because pure pacifism requires one to disengage from society entirely. A logical conclusion would allow an Anarchy where bad men are allowed to roam free.


I actully pretty much agree with you here. The term "pacifism" has many negative connotations, and the philosophy itself is fraught with varying degrees. The pacifism of Tolstoy, for example, advocates the type of "Christian anarchy" that you mention above. Personally I reject the concept of "Christian anarachy" as a very unorthodox idea. I also believe in certain forms of physical force. I spank my children occasionally, which is a discipline of force but not of violence. I also believe that there may be times in life where one instinctively reacts to defend oneself or one's loved ones. However, this is quite different from acquiring guns and weapons which are designed to kill. As Christians we must prepare not to kill, and also be prepared to engage in proactive nonviolent efforts to redress injustices and quell evils. The rest is in God's hands.


Selam
Title: Re: Orthodox view of the Armed Forces
Post by: Gebre Menfes Kidus on March 18, 2012, 09:31:38 PM
Put your sword back in its place,” Jesus said to him, “for all who draw the sword will die by the sword. Do you think I cannot call on my Father, and he will at once put at my disposal more than twelve legions of angels?

Note that He did not say "don't serve in the military". Note also that in His several conversations with Roman soldiers, He never tells them to quit the army. In fact, overall, Roman soldiers get far better treatment in the Gospels than, say, the Pharisees.



As I mentioned earlier, drunkards and prostitutes also received much better treatment in the Gospels than the Pharisees. Are we to extrapolate from this that prostitution and drunkeness are quite compatible with the Christian life?


Selam
Title: Re: Orthodox view of the Armed Forces
Post by: Aindriú on March 18, 2012, 09:33:15 PM
Have you spent a lot of time with infantry/SOCOM/Intl SF folks?  Let's not pretend that actual combat isn't killing and blowing stuff up.

Did I say that? No, I said that it's purpose isn't all Modern Warfare 3.

Part of the distinction arises from modern, bureaucratic armed forces, which are filled with non-combat roles, disparagingly referred to as pogs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pogue) (pogues) by US combat units.

A pogue is for someone who isn't infantry. They could still be combat related. And it's an Army term, not "US combat units", whatever that is.

I think the quotes from bishoy speak to your point though.

If quote mining was the source of faith, we could all be papists.

The opinions of the Fathers cited indicate that serving is not necessarily a problem, but killing is an issue. 

I never said killing wasn't an issue. I said it is sometimes* morally obligatory.
Title: Re: Orthodox view of the Armed Forces
Post by: Aindriú on March 18, 2012, 09:35:33 PM
As Christians we must prepare not to kill, and also be prepared to engage in proactive nonviolent efforts to redress injustices and quell evils. The rest is in God's hands.


Selam

I can agree with you here, Gebre. I also know however, that there are times, despite our best efforts, that require more.
Title: Re: Orthodox view of the Armed Forces
Post by: Sauron on March 18, 2012, 09:39:18 PM
Put your sword back in its place,” Jesus said to him, “for all who draw the sword will die by the sword. Do you think I cannot call on my Father, and he will at once put at my disposal more than twelve legions of angels?

Note that He did not say "don't serve in the military". Note also that in His several conversations with Roman soldiers, He never tells them to quit the army. In fact, overall, Roman soldiers get far better treatment in the Gospels than, say, the Pharisees.



As I mentioned earlier, drunkards and prostitutes also received much better treatment in the Gospels than the Pharisees. Are we to extrapolate from this that prostitution and drunkeness are quite compatible with the Christian life?


Selam

And He told them, "Go forth and sin no more". He did not say to Roman soldiers, "Go forth and be AWOL"

Title: Re: Orthodox view of the Armed Forces
Post by: Sauron on March 18, 2012, 09:41:42 PM
I actully pretty much agree with you here. The term "pacifism" has many negative connotations, and the philosophy itself is fraught with varying degrees. The pacifism of Tolstoy, for example, advocates the type of "Christian anarchy" that you mention above. Personally I reject the concept of "Christian anarachy" as a very unorthodox idea. I also believe in certain forms of physical force. I spank my children occasionally, which is a discipline of force but not of violence. I also believe that there may be times in life where one instinctively reacts to defend oneself or one's loved ones. However, this is quite different from acquiring guns and weapons which are designed to kill. As Christians we must prepare not to kill, and also be prepared to engage in proactive nonviolent efforts to redress injustices and quell evils. The rest is in God's hands.

Selam

Of course spanking your children is an act of violence. If you can't understand that, you should not participate in the discussion.

Title: Re: Orthodox view of the Armed Forces
Post by: Melodist on March 18, 2012, 09:50:10 PM
How did Christ deal with the centurion, John the Baptist with the soldiers that came to him, or Peter with Cornelius?
Title: Re: Orthodox view of the Armed Forces
Post by: Cognomen on March 18, 2012, 09:50:26 PM
Put your sword back in its place,” Jesus said to him, “for all who draw the sword will die by the sword. Do you think I cannot call on my Father, and he will at once put at my disposal more than twelve legions of angels?

Note that He did not say "don't serve in the military". Note also that in His several conversations with Roman soldiers, He never tells them to quit the army. In fact, overall, Roman soldiers get far better treatment in the Gospels than, say, the Pharisees.



As I mentioned earlier, drunkards and prostitutes also received much better treatment in the Gospels than the Pharisees. Are we to extrapolate from this that prostitution and drunkeness are quite compatible with the Christian life?


Selam

And He told them, "Go forth and sin no more". He did not say to Roman soldiers, "Go forth and be AWOL"

Right, but if sinning includes killing (which is pretty universally accepted as a sin in the Orthodox Church), then that could be implied.  Further, the quotes of the Fathers (I wish the website better cited where these quotes were from) seemed to indicate that he should go AWOL if ordered to war or kill.

Christ also didn't make the Centurion free his slave.  Can I get my slave on?
Title: Re: Orthodox view of the Armed Forces
Post by: Cognomen on March 18, 2012, 09:57:47 PM
How did Christ deal with the centurion, John the Baptist with the soldiers that came to him, or Peter with Cornelius?

True, but aren't you inferring a more expansive meaning than what may actually be there?  Are there Orthodox sources that confirm your implied view?  If not, it seems similar to what Isaelie was criticized for.
Title: Re: Orthodox view of the Armed Forces
Post by: Gebre Menfes Kidus on March 18, 2012, 09:59:16 PM
Put your sword back in its place,” Jesus said to him, “for all who draw the sword will die by the sword. Do you think I cannot call on my Father, and he will at once put at my disposal more than twelve legions of angels?

Note that He did not say "don't serve in the military". Note also that in His several conversations with Roman soldiers, He never tells them to quit the army. In fact, overall, Roman soldiers get far better treatment in the Gospels than, say, the Pharisees.



As I mentioned earlier, drunkards and prostitutes also received much better treatment in the Gospels than the Pharisees. Are we to extrapolate from this that prostitution and drunkeness are quite compatible with the Christian life?


Selam

And He told them, "Go forth and sin no more". He did not say to Roman soldiers, "Go forth and be AWOL"

Right, but if sinning includes killing (which is pretty universally accepted as a sin in the Orthodox Church), then that could be implied.  Further, the quotes of the Fathers (I wish the website better cited where these quotes were from) seemed to indicate that he should go AWOL if ordered to war or kill.

Christ also didn't make the Centurion free his slave.  Can I get my slave on?

Good point. In fact, such a gross interpretation of Scripture was often used to justify slavery in the Confederacy.


Selam
Title: Re: Orthodox view of the Armed Forces
Post by: Gebre Menfes Kidus on March 18, 2012, 10:00:24 PM
I actully pretty much agree with you here. The term "pacifism" has many negative connotations, and the philosophy itself is fraught with varying degrees. The pacifism of Tolstoy, for example, advocates the type of "Christian anarchy" that you mention above. Personally I reject the concept of "Christian anarachy" as a very unorthodox idea. I also believe in certain forms of physical force. I spank my children occasionally, which is a discipline of force but not of violence. I also believe that there may be times in life where one instinctively reacts to defend oneself or one's loved ones. However, this is quite different from acquiring guns and weapons which are designed to kill. As Christians we must prepare not to kill, and also be prepared to engage in proactive nonviolent efforts to redress injustices and quell evils. The rest is in God's hands.

Selam

Of course spanking your children is an act of violence. If you can't understand that, you should not participate in the discussion.


Perhaps you spank your children in violence; I do not.


Selam
Title: Re: Orthodox view of the Armed Forces
Post by: Aindriú on March 18, 2012, 10:08:54 PM
A selection from a book that you may find interesting:

Quote
Among early Christians there is a certain ambiguity toward war that
emerges from one's reading of patristic sources. The conventional portrait of
the early Church that comes to us is that the early Christians were uniformly
pacifistic, followed by the Church's fourth-century "compromise" with the
Roman Empire. Beginning with Constantine's rule, it is typically argued,
Christians "prostituted" themselves to secular authority. This portrait, however,
does not bear up under close scrutiny. It errs both in its oversimplifying
early Christians' relation to the state and in its attributing to fourthcentury
Christians an overly uncritical attitude toward governing authorities.
As Augustine painstakingly argues in his magisterial City of God, there are
civic duties that are required of the Christian believer, even in a culture
that is (quite literally) crumbling. That duty may encompass preserving the
social order (soldiering), bearing arms, and defending innocent third parties
against gross injustice.

On balance, the limited evidence we have of early Christian attitudes
toward war is inconclusive. Both strands—pacifist and non-pacifist—can be
detected. Clearly, many Christians did oppose military service, but this was
not universal. Nor was opposition due to explicit prohibitions in the NT, evidenced
by the fact that soldiers in the NT are never called to abandon their
profession.13 Even Christian historian Roland Bainton, who himself has
contributed substantially to a pacifist reading of the early Church, concedes
from the existing evidence that while "ecclesiastical authors before Constantine
condemned participation in warfare," this is not the case regarding
military service "in time of peace" and soldiering in general.14 James Turner
Johnson has also closely examined the writings of the early Church fathers
that mirror attitudes toward war and soldiering. His conclusion, following a
careful and even more judicious reading of these sources than Bainton's, is
that evidence is mixed.15 Thus, it is fair to contend that the early Church
was not absolutist on either pacifism or military service.

III. DEVELOPMENT OF JUST-WAR THINKING IN
HISTORIC CHRISTIAN THOUGHT1 6

For St. Ambrose and St. Augustine, from whose writings Christian justwar
thinking is thought initially to derive, two common elements in their
reflections on war are striking. One is the hortatory tenor with which both
admonish fellow Christians not to remain aloof from affairs of the state as
they wait for the eschaton. The "earthly city" is never wholly free from the
dangers of human depravity, bloodshed, and war. This will mean that in order
to preserve the basis upon which peace and order reside, a justly ordered
application of force is necessary. Short of the eschaton, that heavenly city,
justice must preserve a penultimate form of peace. Christians are by no means
absolved from society's duty to preserve justice.
http://www.etsjets.org/files/JETS-PDFs/48/48-3/JETS_48-3_589-608.pdf
Title: Re: Orthodox view of the Armed Forces
Post by: Cognomen on March 18, 2012, 10:12:42 PM
Good point. In fact, such a gross interpretation of Scripture was often used to justify slavery in the Confederacy.

Understanding the sensitivity of the subject, perhaps neither are condemned (military service or slavery), because neither, in and of themselves, is sinful.  It's the frequently associated conditions, e.g. killing, human degradation, etc that is the actual sin.

Then again, the NT isn't an exhaustive listing of do's and don'ts.  Seems we frequently weasel our way out of the few specific commandments the Lord gave anyway.
Title: Re: Orthodox view of the Armed Forces
Post by: PeterTheAleut on March 18, 2012, 10:16:13 PM
I actully pretty much agree with you here. The term "pacifism" has many negative connotations, and the philosophy itself is fraught with varying degrees. The pacifism of Tolstoy, for example, advocates the type of "Christian anarchy" that you mention above. Personally I reject the concept of "Christian anarachy" as a very unorthodox idea. I also believe in certain forms of physical force. I spank my children occasionally, which is a discipline of force but not of violence. I also believe that there may be times in life where one instinctively reacts to defend oneself or one's loved ones. However, this is quite different from acquiring guns and weapons which are designed to kill. As Christians we must prepare not to kill, and also be prepared to engage in proactive nonviolent efforts to redress injustices and quell evils. The rest is in God's hands.

Selam

Of course spanking your children is an act of violence. If you can't understand that, you should not participate in the discussion.


Perhaps you should stop trying to bully others out of discussions in this way.
Title: Re: Orthodox view of the Armed Forces
Post by: Cognomen on March 18, 2012, 10:22:31 PM
Thanks for posting that, Andrieu.  As my previous jus in bello comment indicated, I think Just War Theory should play a large role in this discussion (although maybe that's a separate thread entirely).
Title: Re: Orthodox view of the Armed Forces
Post by: JamesRottnek on March 18, 2012, 10:23:34 PM
Whoever wrote this does not know the LORD.
I'm finished here. Goodbye - I've gotten my point across but no matter what I and Gebre Menfes Kidus say your hearts are so hardened - you will find anything to excuse the Love that God calls us to have.

Have you heard of this thing called 'Lent'?  It's really great, I encourage you to check it out.
Title: Re: Orthodox view of the Armed Forces
Post by: JamesRottnek on March 18, 2012, 10:23:34 PM
Or am i reading the wrong Gospel?

No, you are reading the Gospel wrong.
Title: Re: Orthodox view of the Armed Forces
Post by: JamesRottnek on March 18, 2012, 10:23:34 PM
But you and I know that the Defense of the Faith comes not from killing, but from this:
A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.

Anyways I have Church in about an hour and still got to do some study.

God bless

Is it love to allow others to slaughter your children?

This is a false dichotomy that has already been addressed. Nonviolence does not mean nonresistance. There is a way to fight evil and defend one's children without killing. If our nonviolence results in our own death or the death of others, then we can be assured that God will recompense the evildoers and reward the innocent victims. God does not ask or command us to violently establish the justice belongs to Him alone.


Selam

What if the person has a gun?  What if that gun is pointed at your daughter, are you going to rush him and try to tackle him before he can fire it?  Suppose you have a gun, would you try and rush him, or would you put a bullet in his head?  And God sometimes does command people to establish justice, I recommend you read the Old Testament, where He commanded the Israelites to slaughter countless pagans.

I am familiar with the Old Testament. Do we still sacrifice bulls and goats to atone for sins? Do we still stone disobedient children? Why do the advocates of violence selectively appeal to the Old Testament in this one regard while adhering to the New Testament in all others?


Selam

Who exactly advocates violence?  This is why people don't take you seriously.
Title: Re: Orthodox view of the Armed Forces
Post by: Shiny on March 18, 2012, 10:23:34 PM
We should be using the weapons of the Holy Spirt and not the weapons of man.

I don't know I've struggled with this pacifism thing alot myself. I'm not sure if I agree with Tolstoy on the matter.
Title: Re: Orthodox view of the Armed Forces
Post by: Shiny on March 18, 2012, 10:23:34 PM
I think those quotes kind of reinforce my personal belief that Christianity disavows killing, under any circumstance. That said, don't we go to war because we love what is behind us and not hate was in front of us?

There was something Isa said awhile ago that we can clothe our neighbors but we will not allow them to ravage through or homes. Something like that, I wish he would chime in here.
Title: Re: Orthodox view of the Armed Forces
Post by: orthonorm on March 18, 2012, 10:40:06 PM
I think those quotes kind of reinforce my personal belief that Christianity disavows killing, under any circumstance. That said, don't we go to war because we love what is behind us and not hate was in front of us?

There was something Isa said awhile ago that we can clothe our neighbors but we will not allow them to ravage through or homes. Something like that, I wish he would chime in here.

If someone asks you for something, you give them more and all that.

If you are going to go all red-letter here.
Title: Re: Orthodox view of the Armed Forces
Post by: JamesRottnek on March 18, 2012, 10:40:46 PM
I actully pretty much agree with you here. The term "pacifism" has many negative connotations, and the philosophy itself is fraught with varying degrees. The pacifism of Tolstoy, for example, advocates the type of "Christian anarchy" that you mention above. Personally I reject the concept of "Christian anarachy" as a very unorthodox idea. I also believe in certain forms of physical force. I spank my children occasionally, which is a discipline of force but not of violence. I also believe that there may be times in life where one instinctively reacts to defend oneself or one's loved ones. However, this is quite different from acquiring guns and weapons which are designed to kill. As Christians we must prepare not to kill, and also be prepared to engage in proactive nonviolent efforts to redress injustices and quell evils. The rest is in God's hands.

Selam

Of course spanking your children is an act of violence. If you can't understand that, you should not participate in the discussion.


Perhaps you spank your children in violence; I do not.


Selam

And I shoot random passersby on occasion, not out of violence, but boredom.
Title: Re: Orthodox view of the Armed Forces
Post by: Sauron on March 18, 2012, 11:03:09 PM
I actully pretty much agree with you here. The term "pacifism" has many negative connotations, and the philosophy itself is fraught with varying degrees. The pacifism of Tolstoy, for example, advocates the type of "Christian anarchy" that you mention above. Personally I reject the concept of "Christian anarachy" as a very unorthodox idea. I also believe in certain forms of physical force. I spank my children occasionally, which is a discipline of force but not of violence. I also believe that there may be times in life where one instinctively reacts to defend oneself or one's loved ones. However, this is quite different from acquiring guns and weapons which are designed to kill. As Christians we must prepare not to kill, and also be prepared to engage in proactive nonviolent efforts to redress injustices and quell evils. The rest is in God's hands.

Selam

Of course spanking your children is an act of violence. If you can't understand that, you should not participate in the discussion.


Perhaps you spank your children in violence; I do not.

Selam

Oh, do you just wave your hands over them? You don't allow your hand to hit them so that it is detected by their nervous system?

Just what do you think "violence" is? (and don't say something cute like "it's not spanking")
Title: Re: Orthodox view of the Armed Forces
Post by: Sauron on March 18, 2012, 11:04:56 PM
I actully pretty much agree with you here. The term "pacifism" has many negative connotations, and the philosophy itself is fraught with varying degrees. The pacifism of Tolstoy, for example, advocates the type of "Christian anarchy" that you mention above. Personally I reject the concept of "Christian anarachy" as a very unorthodox idea. I also believe in certain forms of physical force. I spank my children occasionally, which is a discipline of force but not of violence. I also believe that there may be times in life where one instinctively reacts to defend oneself or one's loved ones. However, this is quite different from acquiring guns and weapons which are designed to kill. As Christians we must prepare not to kill, and also be prepared to engage in proactive nonviolent efforts to redress injustices and quell evils. The rest is in God's hands.

Selam

Of course spanking your children is an act of violence. If you can't understand that, you should not participate in the discussion.


Perhaps you should stop trying to bully others out of discussions in this way.

Gebre doesn't know what "violence" means and you can't figure out what "bully" means. Let's get one more person who doesn't understand a simple word for the trifecta.

Title: Re: Orthodox view of the Armed Forces
Post by: TheMathematician on March 18, 2012, 11:29:20 PM
I actully pretty much agree with you here. The term "pacifism" has many negative connotations, and the philosophy itself is fraught with varying degrees. The pacifism of Tolstoy, for example, advocates the type of "Christian anarchy" that you mention above. Personally I reject the concept of "Christian anarachy" as a very unorthodox idea. I also believe in certain forms of physical force. I spank my children occasionally, which is a discipline of force but not of violence. I also believe that there may be times in life where one instinctively reacts to defend oneself or one's loved ones. However, this is quite different from acquiring guns and weapons which are designed to kill. As Christians we must prepare not to kill, and also be prepared to engage in proactive nonviolent efforts to redress injustices and quell evils. The rest is in God's hands.

Selam

Of course spanking your children is an act of violence. If you can't understand that, you should not participate in the discussion.


Perhaps you should stop trying to bully others out of discussions in this way.

Gebre doesn't know what "violence" means and you can't figure out what "bully" means. Let's get one more person who doesn't understand a simple word for the trifecta.


I rarely, if ever, defend Gebre, but.

From what i gathered from readings on many topics here and elsewhere, if done correctly, spanking is an act of love, and not violence. If the lesson is to be learned, then the spanking is to occur, but then love is shown and explaained why it happens.

While it involves violence, it is love, and not violnce, that the act is if done correctly.
Title: Re: Orthodox view of the Armed Forces
Post by: JamesRottnek on March 18, 2012, 11:45:59 PM
I actully pretty much agree with you here. The term "pacifism" has many negative connotations, and the philosophy itself is fraught with varying degrees. The pacifism of Tolstoy, for example, advocates the type of "Christian anarchy" that you mention above. Personally I reject the concept of "Christian anarachy" as a very unorthodox idea. I also believe in certain forms of physical force. I spank my children occasionally, which is a discipline of force but not of violence. I also believe that there may be times in life where one instinctively reacts to defend oneself or one's loved ones. However, this is quite different from acquiring guns and weapons which are designed to kill. As Christians we must prepare not to kill, and also be prepared to engage in proactive nonviolent efforts to redress injustices and quell evils. The rest is in God's hands.

Selam

Of course spanking your children is an act of violence. If you can't understand that, you should not participate in the discussion.


Perhaps you should stop trying to bully others out of discussions in this way.

Gebre doesn't know what "violence" means and you can't figure out what "bully" means. Let's get one more person who doesn't understand a simple word for the trifecta.


I rarely, if ever, defend Gebre, but.

From what i gathered from readings on many topics here and elsewhere, if done correctly, spanking is an act of love, and not violence. If the lesson is to be learned, then the spanking is to occur, but then love is shown and explaained why it happens.

While it involves violence, it is love, and not violnce, that the act is if done correctly.

But evidently then, in Gebre's opinion, it is in no way an act of love to shoot gangsters who are trying to rape a little girl.  That is only an act of violence, no matter how you go about it.  What we should really do is pray, so that - if God pleases - the Lord can send down a regiment of angels to strike dead the gangsters.  We should not take it into our own hands, as God may wish to teach the little girl a lesson, by allowing her to be raped.

Or, at least, this is what Gebre's logic amounts to, even if it isn't his actual opinion.
Title: Re: Orthodox view of the Armed Forces
Post by: Gebre Menfes Kidus on March 18, 2012, 11:47:16 PM
But you and I know that the Defense of the Faith comes not from killing, but from this:
A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.

Anyways I have Church in about an hour and still got to do some study.

God bless

Is it love to allow others to slaughter your children?

This is a false dichotomy that has already been addressed. Nonviolence does not mean nonresistance. There is a way to fight evil and defend one's children without killing. If our nonviolence results in our own death or the death of others, then we can be assured that God will recompense the evildoers and reward the innocent victims. God does not ask or command us to violently establish the justice belongs to Him alone.


Selam

What if the person has a gun?  What if that gun is pointed at your daughter, are you going to rush him and try to tackle him before he can fire it?  Suppose you have a gun, would you try and rush him, or would you put a bullet in his head?  And God sometimes does command people to establish justice, I recommend you read the Old Testament, where He commanded the Israelites to slaughter countless pagans.

I am familiar with the Old Testament. Do we still sacrifice bulls and goats to atone for sins? Do we still stone disobedient children? Why do the advocates of violence selectively appeal to the Old Testament in this one regard while adhering to the New Testament in all others?


Selam

Who exactly advocates violence?  This is why people don't take you seriously.


And Pro-choicers aren't pro-abortion either, or so they claim. But the effective result of their "pro-choice" position is that the unborn are slaughtered. It's a bit too convenient to claim not to advocate violence while arguing vehemently for justifications for violence. I tend not to let people off the hook in this regard.


Selam
Title: Re: Orthodox view of the Armed Forces
Post by: Gebre Menfes Kidus on March 18, 2012, 11:48:31 PM
I actully pretty much agree with you here. The term "pacifism" has many negative connotations, and the philosophy itself is fraught with varying degrees. The pacifism of Tolstoy, for example, advocates the type of "Christian anarchy" that you mention above. Personally I reject the concept of "Christian anarachy" as a very unorthodox idea. I also believe in certain forms of physical force. I spank my children occasionally, which is a discipline of force but not of violence. I also believe that there may be times in life where one instinctively reacts to defend oneself or one's loved ones. However, this is quite different from acquiring guns and weapons which are designed to kill. As Christians we must prepare not to kill, and also be prepared to engage in proactive nonviolent efforts to redress injustices and quell evils. The rest is in God's hands.

Selam

Of course spanking your children is an act of violence. If you can't understand that, you should not participate in the discussion.


Perhaps you should stop trying to bully others out of discussions in this way.

Gebre doesn't know what "violence" means and you can't figure out what "bully" means. Let's get one more person who doesn't understand a simple word for the trifecta.


I rarely, if ever, defend Gebre, but.

From what i gathered from readings on many topics here and elsewhere, if done correctly, spanking is an act of love, and not violence. If the lesson is to be learned, then the spanking is to occur, but then love is shown and explaained why it happens.

While it involves violence, it is love, and not violnce, that the act is if done correctly.

But evidently then, in Gebre's opinion, it is in no way an act of love to shoot gangsters who are trying to rape a little girl.  That is only an act of violence, no matter how you go about it.  What we should really do is pray, so that - if God pleases - the Lord can send down a regiment of angels to strike dead the gangsters.  We should not take it into our own hands, as God may wish to teach the little girl a lesson, by allowing her to be raped.

Or, at least, this is what Gebre's logic amounts to, even if it isn't his actual opinion.

Dear brother, please do not make straw man caricatures of my position. It is dishonest, inaccurate, and unproductive to the discussion.


Selam
Title: Re: Orthodox view of the Armed Forces
Post by: PeterTheAleut on March 18, 2012, 11:58:27 PM
I actully pretty much agree with you here. The term "pacifism" has many negative connotations, and the philosophy itself is fraught with varying degrees. The pacifism of Tolstoy, for example, advocates the type of "Christian anarchy" that you mention above. Personally I reject the concept of "Christian anarachy" as a very unorthodox idea. I also believe in certain forms of physical force. I spank my children occasionally, which is a discipline of force but not of violence. I also believe that there may be times in life where one instinctively reacts to defend oneself or one's loved ones. However, this is quite different from acquiring guns and weapons which are designed to kill. As Christians we must prepare not to kill, and also be prepared to engage in proactive nonviolent efforts to redress injustices and quell evils. The rest is in God's hands.

Selam

Of course spanking your children is an act of violence. If you can't understand that, you should not participate in the discussion.


Perhaps you should stop trying to bully others out of discussions in this way.

Gebre doesn't know what "violence" means and you can't figure out what "bully" means. Let's get one more person who doesn't understand a simple word for the trifecta.


I rarely, if ever, defend Gebre, but.

From what i gathered from readings on many topics here and elsewhere, if done correctly, spanking is an act of love, and not violence. If the lesson is to be learned, then the spanking is to occur, but then love is shown and explaained why it happens.

While it involves violence, it is love, and not violnce, that the act is if done correctly.

But evidently then, in Gebre's opinion, it is in no way an act of love to shoot gangsters who are trying to rape a little girl.  That is only an act of violence, no matter how you go about it.  What we should really do is pray, so that - if God pleases - the Lord can send down a regiment of angels to strike dead the gangsters.  We should not take it into our own hands, as God may wish to teach the little girl a lesson, by allowing her to be raped.

Or, at least, this is what Gebre's logic amounts to, even if it isn't his actual opinion.
I've had these debates with Gebre much longer than you have, so I'm qualified to tell you this: You're grossly misrepresenting his position.
Title: Re: Orthodox view of the Armed Forces
Post by: JamesRottnek on March 19, 2012, 02:51:50 AM
I actully pretty much agree with you here. The term "pacifism" has many negative connotations, and the philosophy itself is fraught with varying degrees. The pacifism of Tolstoy, for example, advocates the type of "Christian anarchy" that you mention above. Personally I reject the concept of "Christian anarachy" as a very unorthodox idea. I also believe in certain forms of physical force. I spank my children occasionally, which is a discipline of force but not of violence. I also believe that there may be times in life where one instinctively reacts to defend oneself or one's loved ones. However, this is quite different from acquiring guns and weapons which are designed to kill. As Christians we must prepare not to kill, and also be prepared to engage in proactive nonviolent efforts to redress injustices and quell evils. The rest is in God's hands.

Selam

Of course spanking your children is an act of violence. If you can't understand that, you should not participate in the discussion.


Perhaps you should stop trying to bully others out of discussions in this way.

Gebre doesn't know what "violence" means and you can't figure out what "bully" means. Let's get one more person who doesn't understand a simple word for the trifecta.


I rarely, if ever, defend Gebre, but.

From what i gathered from readings on many topics here and elsewhere, if done correctly, spanking is an act of love, and not violence. If the lesson is to be learned, then the spanking is to occur, but then love is shown and explaained why it happens.

While it involves violence, it is love, and not violnce, that the act is if done correctly.

But evidently then, in Gebre's opinion, it is in no way an act of love to shoot gangsters who are trying to rape a little girl.  That is only an act of violence, no matter how you go about it.  What we should really do is pray, so that - if God pleases - the Lord can send down a regiment of angels to strike dead the gangsters.  We should not take it into our own hands, as God may wish to teach the little girl a lesson, by allowing her to be raped.

Or, at least, this is what Gebre's logic amounts to, even if it isn't his actual opinion.
I've had these debates with Gebre much longer than you have, so I'm qualified to tell you this: You're grossly misrepresenting his position.

I am not misrepresenting his position because I am not attempting to represent his position.  I am representing where the logic of all his statements in this thread leads.
Title: Re: Orthodox view of the Armed Forces
Post by: PeterTheAleut on March 19, 2012, 03:06:47 AM
I actully pretty much agree with you here. The term "pacifism" has many negative connotations, and the philosophy itself is fraught with varying degrees. The pacifism of Tolstoy, for example, advocates the type of "Christian anarchy" that you mention above. Personally I reject the concept of "Christian anarachy" as a very unorthodox idea. I also believe in certain forms of physical force. I spank my children occasionally, which is a discipline of force but not of violence. I also believe that there may be times in life where one instinctively reacts to defend oneself or one's loved ones. However, this is quite different from acquiring guns and weapons which are designed to kill. As Christians we must prepare not to kill, and also be prepared to engage in proactive nonviolent efforts to redress injustices and quell evils. The rest is in God's hands.

Selam

Of course spanking your children is an act of violence. If you can't understand that, you should not participate in the discussion.


Perhaps you should stop trying to bully others out of discussions in this way.

Gebre doesn't know what "violence" means and you can't figure out what "bully" means. Let's get one more person who doesn't understand a simple word for the trifecta.


I rarely, if ever, defend Gebre, but.

From what i gathered from readings on many topics here and elsewhere, if done correctly, spanking is an act of love, and not violence. If the lesson is to be learned, then the spanking is to occur, but then love is shown and explaained why it happens.

While it involves violence, it is love, and not violnce, that the act is if done correctly.

But evidently then, in Gebre's opinion, it is in no way an act of love to shoot gangsters who are trying to rape a little girl.  That is only an act of violence, no matter how you go about it.  What we should really do is pray, so that - if God pleases - the Lord can send down a regiment of angels to strike dead the gangsters.  We should not take it into our own hands, as God may wish to teach the little girl a lesson, by allowing her to be raped.

Or, at least, this is what Gebre's logic amounts to, even if it isn't his actual opinion.
I've had these debates with Gebre much longer than you have, so I'm qualified to tell you this: You're grossly misrepresenting his position.

I am not misrepresenting his position because I am not attempting to represent his position.  I am representing where the logic of all his statements in this thread leads.
But then it's your logic to carry his logic as far as you carry it, for he refuses to take his logic as absurdly far as you do.
Title: Re: Orthodox view of the Armed Forces
Post by: Aindriú on March 19, 2012, 09:00:26 AM
A selection from a book that you may find interesting:
http://www.etsjets.org/files/JETS-PDFs/48/48-3/JETS_48-3_589-608.pdf
Thanks for posting that, Andrieu.  As my previous jus in bello comment indicated, I think Just War Theory should play a large role in this discussion (although maybe that's a separate thread entirely).

Just War is a position I think that is worth talking about. When viewed correctly, it's actually closer to pacifism than some would like to admit.
Title: Re: Orthodox view of the Armed Forces
Post by: Shiny on March 19, 2012, 09:19:15 AM
I actully pretty much agree with you here. The term "pacifism" has many negative connotations, and the philosophy itself is fraught with varying degrees. The pacifism of Tolstoy, for example, advocates the type of "Christian anarchy" that you mention above. Personally I reject the concept of "Christian anarachy" as a very unorthodox idea. I also believe in certain forms of physical force. I spank my children occasionally, which is a discipline of force but not of violence. I also believe that there may be times in life where one instinctively reacts to defend oneself or one's loved ones. However, this is quite different from acquiring guns and weapons which are designed to kill. As Christians we must prepare not to kill, and also be prepared to engage in proactive nonviolent efforts to redress injustices and quell evils. The rest is in God's hands.


Selam

This is perfect. I 100% agree with all of this.

Some of you grossly miss his points above just so it can fit to your own political biases.
Title: Re: Orthodox view of the Armed Forces
Post by: Sauron on March 19, 2012, 10:14:52 AM
I actully pretty much agree with you here. The term "pacifism" has many negative connotations, and the philosophy itself is fraught with varying degrees. The pacifism of Tolstoy, for example, advocates the type of "Christian anarchy" that you mention above. Personally I reject the concept of "Christian anarachy" as a very unorthodox idea. I also believe in certain forms of physical force. I spank my children occasionally, which is a discipline of force but not of violence. I also believe that there may be times in life where one instinctively reacts to defend oneself or one's loved ones. However, this is quite different from acquiring guns and weapons which are designed to kill. As Christians we must prepare not to kill, and also be prepared to engage in proactive nonviolent efforts to redress injustices and quell evils. The rest is in God's hands.

Selam

Of course spanking your children is an act of violence. If you can't understand that, you should not participate in the discussion.


Perhaps you should stop trying to bully others out of discussions in this way.

Gebre doesn't know what "violence" means and you can't figure out what "bully" means. Let's get one more person who doesn't understand a simple word for the trifecta.


I rarely, if ever, defend Gebre, but.

From what i gathered from readings on many topics here and elsewhere, if done correctly, spanking is an act of love, and not violence. If the lesson is to be learned, then the spanking is to occur, but then love is shown and explaained why it happens.

While it involves violence, it is love, and not violnce, that the act is if done correctly.

Who says that violence cannot be loving? Whether or not an act is violent has absolutely nothing to do with the emotional state of the actor.

Title: Re: Orthodox view of the Armed Forces
Post by: Aindriú on March 19, 2012, 11:37:06 AM
I actully pretty much agree with you here. The term "pacifism" has many negative connotations, and the philosophy itself is fraught with varying degrees. The pacifism of Tolstoy, for example, advocates the type of "Christian anarchy" that you mention above. Personally I reject the concept of "Christian anarachy" as a very unorthodox idea. I also believe in certain forms of physical force. I spank my children occasionally, which is a discipline of force but not of violence. I also believe that there may be times in life where one instinctively reacts to defend oneself or one's loved ones. However, this is quite different from acquiring guns and weapons which are designed to kill. As Christians we must prepare not to kill, and also be prepared to engage in proactive nonviolent efforts to redress injustices and quell evils. The rest is in God's hands.


Selam

This is perfect. I 100% agree with all of this.

Some of you grossly miss his points above just so it can fit to your own political biases.

Don't project.
Title: Re: Orthodox view of the Armed Forces
Post by: orthonorm on March 19, 2012, 12:12:36 PM
I actully pretty much agree with you here. The term "pacifism" has many negative connotations, and the philosophy itself is fraught with varying degrees. The pacifism of Tolstoy, for example, advocates the type of "Christian anarchy" that you mention above. Personally I reject the concept of "Christian anarachy" as a very unorthodox idea. I also believe in certain forms of physical force. I spank my children occasionally, which is a discipline of force but not of violence. I also believe that there may be times in life where one instinctively reacts to defend oneself or one's loved ones. However, this is quite different from acquiring guns and weapons which are designed to kill. As Christians we must prepare not to kill, and also be prepared to engage in proactive nonviolent efforts to redress injustices and quell evils. The rest is in God's hands.


Selam

This is perfect. I 100% agree with all of this.

Some of you grossly miss his points above just so it can fit to your own political biases.

You both need to stop paying your taxes and never call the police. It is just out-sourced violence.
Title: Re: Orthodox view of the Armed Forces
Post by: Ortho_cat on March 19, 2012, 01:30:43 PM
i've heard some say that pacifism is dependant upon the freedoms that we already enjoy, which were bought with a price.
Title: Re: Orthodox view of the Armed Forces
Post by: Sauron on March 19, 2012, 01:38:30 PM
i've heard some say that pacifism is dependant upon the freedoms that we already enjoy, which were bought with a price.

Even more so, pacifism is a fiction. If one relies upon the law, guess what? At the end of the day, the state will use violence and enforce to enforce the law. That is why it is called "enFORCE".

The only true pacifism would be complete submission to any aggressor. If a woman is raped, she must lie there. If a child is snatched away, let the abductor escape unfettered. If a bank is robbed, let the robbers walk right out.

I have never heard of a "pacifist" advocating any such thing, of course.

Title: Re: Orthodox view of the Armed Forces
Post by: vamrat on March 19, 2012, 02:04:48 PM
I actully pretty much agree with you here. The term "pacifism" has many negative connotations, and the philosophy itself is fraught with varying degrees. The pacifism of Tolstoy, for example, advocates the type of "Christian anarchy" that you mention above. Personally I reject the concept of "Christian anarachy" as a very unorthodox idea. I also believe in certain forms of physical force. I spank my children occasionally, which is a discipline of force but not of violence. I also believe that there may be times in life where one instinctively reacts to defend oneself or one's loved ones. However, this is quite different from acquiring guns and weapons which are designed to kill. As Christians we must prepare not to kill, and also be prepared to engage in proactive nonviolent efforts to redress injustices and quell evils. The rest is in God's hands.

Selam

Of course spanking your children is an act of violence. If you can't understand that, you should not participate in the discussion.


Perhaps you should stop trying to bully others out of discussions in this way.

Gebre doesn't know what "violence" means and you can't figure out what "bully" means. Let's get one more person who doesn't understand a simple word for the trifecta.


I rarely, if ever, defend Gebre, but.

From what i gathered from readings on many topics here and elsewhere, if done correctly, spanking is an act of love, and not violence. If the lesson is to be learned, then the spanking is to occur, but then love is shown and explaained why it happens.

While it involves violence, it is love, and not violnce, that the act is if done correctly.

But evidently then, in Gebre's opinion, it is in no way an act of love to shoot gangsters who are trying to rape a little girl.  That is only an act of violence, no matter how you go about it.  What we should really do is pray, so that - if God pleases - the Lord can send down a regiment of angels to strike dead the gangsters.  We should not take it into our own hands, as God may wish to teach the little girl a lesson, by allowing her to be raped.

Or, at least, this is what Gebre's logic amounts to, even if it isn't his actual opinion.

I would be interested to know how a pacifist would respond to this situation?
Title: Re: Orthodox view of the Armed Forces
Post by: Shiny on March 21, 2012, 01:56:57 AM
I actully pretty much agree with you here. The term "pacifism" has many negative connotations, and the philosophy itself is fraught with varying degrees. The pacifism of Tolstoy, for example, advocates the type of "Christian anarchy" that you mention above. Personally I reject the concept of "Christian anarachy" as a very unorthodox idea. I also believe in certain forms of physical force. I spank my children occasionally, which is a discipline of force but not of violence. I also believe that there may be times in life where one instinctively reacts to defend oneself or one's loved ones. However, this is quite different from acquiring guns and weapons which are designed to kill. As Christians we must prepare not to kill, and also be prepared to engage in proactive nonviolent efforts to redress injustices and quell evils. The rest is in God's hands.


Selam

This is perfect. I 100% agree with all of this.

Some of you grossly miss his points above just so it can fit to your own political biases.

You both need to stop paying your taxes and never call the police. It is just out-sourced violence.

See if you actually read what Gebre wrote I wouldn't have to say people miss his points.
Title: Re: Orthodox view of the Armed Forces
Post by: JamesRottnek on March 21, 2012, 02:08:51 AM
I actully pretty much agree with you here. The term "pacifism" has many negative connotations, and the philosophy itself is fraught with varying degrees. The pacifism of Tolstoy, for example, advocates the type of "Christian anarchy" that you mention above. Personally I reject the concept of "Christian anarachy" as a very unorthodox idea. I also believe in certain forms of physical force. I spank my children occasionally, which is a discipline of force but not of violence. I also believe that there may be times in life where one instinctively reacts to defend oneself or one's loved ones. However, this is quite different from acquiring guns and weapons which are designed to kill. As Christians we must prepare not to kill, and also be prepared to engage in proactive nonviolent efforts to redress injustices and quell evils. The rest is in God's hands.


Selam

This is perfect. I 100% agree with all of this.

Some of you grossly miss his points above just so it can fit to your own political biases.

You both need to stop paying your taxes and never call the police. It is just out-sourced violence.

See if you actually read what Gebre wrote I wouldn't have to say people miss his points.

I think you missed the part where he says people shouldn't acquire guns and weapons, as they are designed to kill.  Police most certainly do this; they also train to shoot people with those guns, when the need arises.

I would still like to see what Gebre recommends when a gang of several men is trying to rape a little girl; does he or does he not think shooting them is acceptable.
Title: Re: Orthodox view of the Armed Forces
Post by: akimori makoto on March 21, 2012, 07:15:55 PM
i've heard some say that pacifism is dependant upon the freedoms that we already enjoy, which were bought with a price.

Even more so, pacifism is a fiction. If one relies upon the law, guess what? At the end of the day, the state will use violence and enforce to enforce the law. That is why it is called "enFORCE".

The only true pacifism would be complete submission to any aggressor. If a woman is raped, she must lie there. If a child is snatched away, let the abductor escape unfettered. If a bank is robbed, let the robbers walk right out.

I have never heard of a "pacifist" advocating any such thing, of course.



Yes, this seems to me to be the inescapable result of pacifist logic.

This logic sometimes even leads me to question whether a Christian can be a lawyer -- but it seems everyone relies on the sword which the state wields.
Title: Re: Orthodox view of the Armed Forces
Post by: orthonorm on March 21, 2012, 07:28:28 PM
i've heard some say that pacifism is dependant upon the freedoms that we already enjoy, which were bought with a price.

Even more so, pacifism is a fiction. If one relies upon the law, guess what? At the end of the day, the state will use violence and enforce to enforce the law. That is why it is called "enFORCE".

The only true pacifism would be complete submission to any aggressor. If a woman is raped, she must lie there. If a child is snatched away, let the abductor escape unfettered. If a bank is robbed, let the robbers walk right out.

I have never heard of a "pacifist" advocating any such thing, of course.



Yes, this seems to me to be the inescapable result of pacifist logic.

This logic sometimes even leads me to question whether a Christian can be a lawyer -- but it seems everyone relies on the sword which the state wields.

I can assure the answer is no. Unless you are helping the poor and marginalized while not on the State's dime. And if you make sure to every jury you come across in the US that jury nullification is permitted, no matter how many times some ************* judge tosses you in the klink for it.
Title: Re: Orthodox view of the Armed Forces
Post by: Sauron on March 22, 2012, 12:08:01 AM
i've heard some say that pacifism is dependant upon the freedoms that we already enjoy, which were bought with a price.

Even more so, pacifism is a fiction. If one relies upon the law, guess what? At the end of the day, the state will use violence and enforce to enforce the law. That is why it is called "enFORCE".

The only true pacifism would be complete submission to any aggressor. If a woman is raped, she must lie there. If a child is snatched away, let the abductor escape unfettered. If a bank is robbed, let the robbers walk right out.

I have never heard of a "pacifist" advocating any such thing, of course.



Yes, this seems to me to be the inescapable result of pacifist logic.

This logic sometimes even leads me to question whether a Christian can be a lawyer -- but it seems everyone relies on the sword which the state wields.

Correct. If you rely on the law, that is not non-violent because the state will use force to enforce the law. That is why it is called enFORCE.

Title: Re: Orthodox view of the Armed Forces
Post by: Sauron on March 22, 2012, 12:10:22 AM
I can assure the answer is no. Unless you are helping the poor and marginalized while not on the State's dime. And if you make sure to every jury you come across in the US that jury nullification is permitted, no matter how many times some ************* judge tosses you in the klink for it.

Yeah, that still doesn't work. Even if your clients are the poor and meek, if you win in court for them, the state will still use force to enFORCE their victory.

I guess all the pacifists just want us to live by ourselves in a teepee and eat berries to avoid violence. (and remember, spanking a child is force, not violence!)

Title: Re: Orthodox view of the Armed Forces
Post by: Sauron on March 22, 2012, 12:11:38 AM
I actully pretty much agree with you here. The term "pacifism" has many negative connotations, and the philosophy itself is fraught with varying degrees. The pacifism of Tolstoy, for example, advocates the type of "Christian anarchy" that you mention above. Personally I reject the concept of "Christian anarachy" as a very unorthodox idea. I also believe in certain forms of physical force. I spank my children occasionally, which is a discipline of force but not of violence. I also believe that there may be times in life where one instinctively reacts to defend oneself or one's loved ones. However, this is quite different from acquiring guns and weapons which are designed to kill. As Christians we must prepare not to kill, and also be prepared to engage in proactive nonviolent efforts to redress injustices and quell evils. The rest is in God's hands.


Selam

This is perfect. I 100% agree with all of this.

Some of you grossly miss his points above just so it can fit to your own political biases.

You both need to stop paying your taxes and never call the police. It is just out-sourced violence.

See if you actually read what Gebre wrote I wouldn't have to say people miss his points.

If Gebre would not make up distinctions that do not exist, you wouldn't have to post, either.

Care to explain the difference between force and violence?

Title: Re: Orthodox view of the Armed Forces
Post by: orthonorm on March 22, 2012, 12:16:51 AM
I can assure the answer is no. Unless you are helping the poor and marginalized while not on the State's dime. And if you make sure to every jury you come across in the US that jury nullification is permitted, no matter how many times some ************* judge tosses you in the klink for it.

Yeah, that still doesn't work. Even if your clients are the poor and meek, if you win in court for them, the state will still use force to enFORCE their victory.

I guess all the pacifists just want us to live by ourselves in a teepee and eat berries to avoid violence. (and remember, spanking a child is force, not violence!)



I wasn't arguing for a pacifist benchmark, but a Christian one.

Even then, surely I jest.

We know all lawyers are going to hell.
Title: Re: Orthodox view of the Armed Forces
Post by: Sauron on March 22, 2012, 12:22:50 AM
I can assure the answer is no. Unless you are helping the poor and marginalized while not on the State's dime. And if you make sure to every jury you come across in the US that jury nullification is permitted, no matter how many times some ************* judge tosses you in the klink for it.

Yeah, that still doesn't work. Even if your clients are the poor and meek, if you win in court for them, the state will still use force to enFORCE their victory.

I guess all the pacifists just want us to live by ourselves in a teepee and eat berries to avoid violence. (and remember, spanking a child is force, not violence!)



I wasn't arguing for a pacifist benchmark, but a Christian one.

Even then, surely I jest.

We know all lawyers are going to hell.

Yes, I know you were being humorous. However, it seems to me that the most vocal advocates in this thread are arguing that the Christian benchmark is pacifist. (except for spanking children)

I am going to Hades. :-(

Title: Re: Orthodox view of the Armed Forces
Post by: vamrat on March 22, 2012, 12:28:54 AM
I can assure the answer is no. Unless you are helping the poor and marginalized while not on the State's dime. And if you make sure to every jury you come across in the US that jury nullification is permitted, no matter how many times some ************* judge tosses you in the klink for it.

Yeah, that still doesn't work. Even if your clients are the poor and meek, if you win in court for them, the state will still use force to enFORCE their victory.

I guess all the pacifists just want us to live by ourselves in a teepee and eat berries to avoid violence. (and remember, spanking a child is force, not violence!)



I wasn't arguing for a pacifist benchmark, but a Christian one.

Even then, surely I jest.

We know all lawyers are going to hell.

99% of lawyers give the other 1% a bad name.

The difference between a lawyer and a sperm is that the sperm has a one in a million chance of becoming a human.

I'm sorry, Aki, you know I love you!
Title: Re: Orthodox view of the Armed Forces
Post by: Melodist on March 22, 2012, 08:16:10 AM
So what is the difference between "violence" and "force"?
Title: Re: Orthodox view of the Armed Forces
Post by: vamrat on March 22, 2012, 09:23:22 AM
So what is the difference between "violence" and "force"?

I would usually define them differently.  Violence certainly can be force, though force is not always violent.

Violence is pretty much using actions that are destructive to another person's body or property in order to achieve a desired result. 

Force is using coercion to get what you want from someone.  Sometimes violence will be used.  At others the threat of violence is sufficient.  I can also force you to do something by withholding something that you want.

Often laws are enforced by the State's monopoly on violence - they are the only entity that can kill based on their own criteria and then justify it.  They will not always utilize violence, though.  Garnering wages sidesteps violence in that they also control certain parts of the financial system and can just take money from you without needing to physically remove it from your person.  While they do not need to use violence to coerce, it is always understood that failure to comply can be met with violence.

Much of what I said comes off as entirely negative.  There are forms of positive force and positive violence.  I believe that the three basic rights are life, liberty, and property.  If the State uses violence to force one person to respect the rights of another than this is positive - it is literally giving another person a right. 
Title: Re: Orthodox view of the Armed Forces
Post by: Carl Kraeff (Second Chance) on March 22, 2012, 11:38:39 AM
This thread is veering off topic. I call for a recess until next Monday so that y'all may decide to continue to post off topic (and thus get disciplined) or to continue in other threads (I will even split the topic if y'all PM me and suggest a title/s for the new thread.). Second Chance
Title: Re: Orthodox view of the Armed Forces
Post by: Carl Kraeff (Second Chance) on March 26, 2012, 08:44:15 AM
The thread is now unlocked.
Title: Re: Orthodox view of the Armed Forces
Post by: That person on March 26, 2012, 04:59:13 PM
I can assure the answer is no. Unless you are helping the poor and marginalized while not on the State's dime. And if you make sure to every jury you come across in the US that jury nullification is permitted, no matter how many times some ************* judge tosses you in the klink for it.

Yeah, that still doesn't work. Even if your clients are the poor and meek, if you win in court for them, the state will still use force to enFORCE their victory.

I guess all the pacifists just want us to live by ourselves in a teepee and eat berries to avoid violence. (and remember, spanking a child is force, not violence!)



I wasn't arguing for a pacifist benchmark, but a Christian one.

Even then, surely I jest.

We know all lawyers are going to hell.
What if they repent prior to death, like St. Ambrose of Milan?
Title: Re: Orthodox view of the Armed Forces
Post by: William on April 15, 2012, 10:20:01 PM
Could an executioner or someone in the armed forces who directly kills (special forces, bomber, etc.) be Orthodox?

Also, are wars of conquest (such as many of the Russian and Byzantine empires' wars) okay?
Title: Re: Orthodox view of the Armed Forces
Post by: JamesRottnek on April 16, 2012, 12:26:31 AM
Could an executioner or someone in the armed forces who directly kills (special forces, bomber, etc.) be Orthodox?

Also, are wars of conquest (such as many of the Russian and Byzantine empires' wars) okay?

For the first question, absolutely.  God directly ordered the Israelites to commit genocide.  The Church is Israel.  Consequently, at least under certain circumstances, killing is permissible, if not necessarily desirable.
Title: Re: Orthodox view of the Armed Forces
Post by: PeterTheAleut on April 16, 2012, 12:29:30 AM
Could an executioner or someone in the armed forces who directly kills (special forces, bomber, etc.) be Orthodox?

Also, are wars of conquest (such as many of the Russian and Byzantine empires' wars) okay?

For the first question, absolutely.  God directly ordered the Israelites to commit genocide.  The Church is Israel.  Consequently, at least under certain circumstances, killing is permissible, if not necessarily desirable.
What you gave appears to be merely your private interpretation of the Scriptures. How, though, is this representative of the Orthodox (i.e., the Church's) view of whether it's possible to kill in war and still be Orthodox?
Title: Re: Orthodox view of the Armed Forces
Post by: JamesRottnek on April 16, 2012, 01:29:46 AM
Could an executioner or someone in the armed forces who directly kills (special forces, bomber, etc.) be Orthodox?

Also, are wars of conquest (such as many of the Russian and Byzantine empires' wars) okay?

For the first question, absolutely.  God directly ordered the Israelites to commit genocide.  The Church is Israel.  Consequently, at least under certain circumstances, killing is permissible, if not necessarily desirable.
What you gave appears to be merely your private interpretation of the Scriptures. How, though, is this representative of the Orthodox (i.e., the Church's) view of whether it's possible to kill in war and still be Orthodox?

I've already pointed out many saints who were warriors.  I do not see any reason to believe the Church would permit those who lead troops to be Orthodox, while excommunicating the troops.  There are several answers, from me, regarding your question, throughout this thread.

But besides, is there any reason to believe the Orthodox DON'T think God ordered Israel to commit genocide?
Title: Re: Orthodox view of the Armed Forces
Post by: PeterTheAleut on April 16, 2012, 01:42:08 AM
Could an executioner or someone in the armed forces who directly kills (special forces, bomber, etc.) be Orthodox?

Also, are wars of conquest (such as many of the Russian and Byzantine empires' wars) okay?

For the first question, absolutely.  God directly ordered the Israelites to commit genocide.  The Church is Israel.  Consequently, at least under certain circumstances, killing is permissible, if not necessarily desirable.
What you gave appears to be merely your private interpretation of the Scriptures. How, though, is this representative of the Orthodox (i.e., the Church's) view of whether it's possible to kill in war and still be Orthodox?

I've already pointed out many saints who were warriors.
You don't need to point them out to me, since I am also aware of them. That, however, is not indicative of how the Church views those who kill in battle.

I do not see any reason to believe the Church would permit those who lead troops to be Orthodox, while excommunicating the troops.
YOU do not see. YOU do not see. Do you not see that you're still spouting your personal interpretations (of Scripture, of Church practice, etc.)? That, however, does not prove that your opinions are representative of the Orthodox Tradition.

There are several answers, from me, regarding your question, throughout this thread.
But none to satisfy what I'm looking for from you. For instance, I notice that you have not quoted one Church Father on this matter, nor have you cited any specific Church-based guidance for pastoral responses to those Orthodox who kill in war. This is what I would like to see from you. (BTW, are you not aware that those who kill in battle, regardless of how noble the cause, are still required to go to confession and do penance before receiving Communion again? That, as the Orthodox Church defines the term, IS excommunication. This is the kind of pastoral response I would like to see you cite.)

But besides, is there any reason to believe the Orthodox DON'T think God ordered Israel to commit genocide?
Whether I see a reason or not is immaterial to what you could post that would convince me that you're presenting an Orthodox answer to William's question and not just your own rationalizations.
Title: Re: Orthodox view of the Armed Forces
Post by: JamesRottnek on April 16, 2012, 08:29:45 AM
You're right Peter; I should do the Orthodox thing and chuck my reason at the door.  The mind was given by God for the sole purpose of searching the writings of the Saints.
Title: Re: Orthodox view of the Armed Forces
Post by: Aindriú on April 16, 2012, 08:44:56 AM
You're right Peter; I should do the Orthodox thing and chuck my reason at the door.  The mind was given by God for the sole purpose of searching the writings of the Saints.
lol
Title: Re: Orthodox view of the Armed Forces
Post by: Melodist on April 16, 2012, 08:57:11 AM
You're right Peter; I should do the Orthodox thing and chuck my reason at the door.  The mind was given by God for the sole purpose of searching the writings of the Saints.

God didn't "order genocide", He gave the Israelites instructions on what was necessary to keep themselves from worshipping foreign gods. Also the military campains of the OT, more specifically relating to the Isarelites wondering in the dessert and capturing the promised land, are given as instruction to us in combatting the passions and struggling to completely overcome sin in our lives so that we may inherit our promised land in the age to come. The book of Joshua ends in Israel not completely clearing the promised land of those that worship idols and it becomes a cause of their idolatry over the course of their history as a nation.
Title: Re: Orthodox view of the Armed Forces
Post by: vamrat on April 16, 2012, 09:30:17 AM
You're right Peter; I should do the Orthodox thing and chuck my reason at the door.  The mind was given by God for the sole purpose of searching the writings of the Saints.

 :D

That laugh out of the way, you might take a look at the Lives of the Saints rather than the writings.  I think they would support your position pretty well.  I don't have time and I have a heck of a time implanting images in here, but there are plenty of pictures out there of Orthodox priests blessing troops, if someone had the desire to look them up.
Title: Re: Orthodox view of the Armed Forces
Post by: Melodist on April 16, 2012, 09:55:55 AM
That laugh out of the way, you might take a look at the Lives of the Saints rather than the writings.  I think they would support your position pretty well.  I don't have time and I have a heck of a time implanting images in here, but there are plenty of pictures out there of Orthodox priests blessing troops, if someone had the desire to look them up.

Not exactly an image, but may serve the same purpose.

http://ancientfaith.com/podcasts/valleyoftheshadow (http://ancientfaith.com/podcasts/valleyoftheshadow)
Title: Re: Orthodox view of the Armed Forces
Post by: PeterTheAleut on April 16, 2012, 11:09:53 AM
You're right Peter; I should do the Orthodox thing and chuck my reason at the door.  The mind was given by God for the sole purpose of searching the writings of the Saints.
You do realize I never counseled you to do that? What I DID ask you to do is to stop parading your own reasoning around as though it were the Orthodox teaching on the subject, especially considering that, IIRC, you're still a catechumen or newbie Orthodox who should be investing more energy into learning what the faith teaches rather than arguing as if you already know everything. Take ownership of your reasoning and call it what it is: your own opinions.
Title: Re: Orthodox view of the Armed Forces
Post by: JamesRottnek on April 17, 2012, 12:57:56 AM
You're right Peter; I should do the Orthodox thing and chuck my reason at the door.  The mind was given by God for the sole purpose of searching the writings of the Saints.
You do realize I never counseled you to do that? What I DID ask you to do is to stop parading your own reasoning around as though it were the Orthodox teaching on the subject, especially considering that, IIRC, you're still a catechumen or newbie Orthodox who should be investing more energy into learning what the faith teaches rather than arguing as if you already know everything. Take ownership of your reasoning and call it what it is: your own opinions.

I suppose someone should have told St. Ambrose to shut up, then, when he went to the church, where the election to replace Auxentius, Bishop of Milan, was telling place, to prevent an uproar.  It was during that speech that the unbaptized Ambrose was elected bishop.  I suppose the people were wrong to call for his ordination, seeing as how he was but still unbaptized; and I suppose the friend who's house he was hiding in after this election was wrong to have given him up, seeing as how he was but still unbaptized; and I suppose those bishops who ordained him to the episcopate were wrong to have done so when it was just a week prior that he had been yet unbaptized.

So, how long exactly do I need to be Orthodox before I can stop learning and begin pontificating?  Is there a time-table, or should I speak with a great and holy elder to know that I have been Orthodox long enough?
Title: Re: Orthodox view of the Armed Forces
Post by: PeterTheAleut on April 17, 2012, 01:02:12 AM
You're right Peter; I should do the Orthodox thing and chuck my reason at the door.  The mind was given by God for the sole purpose of searching the writings of the Saints.
You do realize I never counseled you to do that? What I DID ask you to do is to stop parading your own reasoning around as though it were the Orthodox teaching on the subject, especially considering that, IIRC, you're still a catechumen or newbie Orthodox who should be investing more energy into learning what the faith teaches rather than arguing as if you already know everything. Take ownership of your reasoning and call it what it is: your own opinions.

I suppose someone should have told St. Ambrose to shut up, then, when he went to the church, where the election to replace Auxentius, Bishop of Milan, was telling place, to prevent an uproar.  It was during that speech that the unbaptized Ambrose was elected bishop.  I suppose the people were wrong to call for his ordination, seeing as how he was but still unbaptized; and I suppose the friend who's house he was hiding in after this election was wrong to have given him up, seeing as how he was but still unbaptized; and I suppose those bishops who ordained him to the episcopate were wrong to have done so when it was just a week prior that he had been yet unbaptized.
Did St. Ambrose appoint himself bishop?
Title: Re: Orthodox view of the Armed Forces
Post by: JamesRottnek on April 17, 2012, 01:46:08 AM
You're right Peter; I should do the Orthodox thing and chuck my reason at the door.  The mind was given by God for the sole purpose of searching the writings of the Saints.
You do realize I never counseled you to do that? What I DID ask you to do is to stop parading your own reasoning around as though it were the Orthodox teaching on the subject, especially considering that, IIRC, you're still a catechumen or newbie Orthodox who should be investing more energy into learning what the faith teaches rather than arguing as if you already know everything. Take ownership of your reasoning and call it what it is: your own opinions.

I suppose someone should have told St. Ambrose to shut up, then, when he went to the church, where the election to replace Auxentius, Bishop of Milan, was telling place, to prevent an uproar.  It was during that speech that the unbaptized Ambrose was elected bishop.  I suppose the people were wrong to call for his ordination, seeing as how he was but still unbaptized; and I suppose the friend who's house he was hiding in after this election was wrong to have given him up, seeing as how he was but still unbaptized; and I suppose those bishops who ordained him to the episcopate were wrong to have done so when it was just a week prior that he had been yet unbaptized.
Did St. Ambrose appoint himself bishop?

Is this really a germane question? 
Title: Re: Orthodox view of the Armed Forces
Post by: PeterTheAleut on April 17, 2012, 01:56:07 AM
You're right Peter; I should do the Orthodox thing and chuck my reason at the door.  The mind was given by God for the sole purpose of searching the writings of the Saints.
You do realize I never counseled you to do that? What I DID ask you to do is to stop parading your own reasoning around as though it were the Orthodox teaching on the subject, especially considering that, IIRC, you're still a catechumen or newbie Orthodox who should be investing more energy into learning what the faith teaches rather than arguing as if you already know everything. Take ownership of your reasoning and call it what it is: your own opinions.

I suppose someone should have told St. Ambrose to shut up, then, when he went to the church, where the election to replace Auxentius, Bishop of Milan, was telling place, to prevent an uproar.  It was during that speech that the unbaptized Ambrose was elected bishop.  I suppose the people were wrong to call for his ordination, seeing as how he was but still unbaptized; and I suppose the friend who's house he was hiding in after this election was wrong to have given him up, seeing as how he was but still unbaptized; and I suppose those bishops who ordained him to the episcopate were wrong to have done so when it was just a week prior that he had been yet unbaptized.
Did St. Ambrose appoint himself bishop?

Is this really a germane question?  
Yes, it is. You cited the example of St. Ambrose's election to the episcopacy as precedent to justify your self-appointed authority on this thread, so yes, my question is germane to our debate. Only if St. Ambrose appointed himself bishop is his example analogous to your defense of your authority to teach the Orthodox faith even though you're not yet Orthodox.
Title: Re: Orthodox view of the Armed Forces
Post by: JamesRottnek on April 17, 2012, 02:26:15 AM
You're right Peter; I should do the Orthodox thing and chuck my reason at the door.  The mind was given by God for the sole purpose of searching the writings of the Saints.
You do realize I never counseled you to do that? What I DID ask you to do is to stop parading your own reasoning around as though it were the Orthodox teaching on the subject, especially considering that, IIRC, you're still a catechumen or newbie Orthodox who should be investing more energy into learning what the faith teaches rather than arguing as if you already know everything. Take ownership of your reasoning and call it what it is: your own opinions.

I suppose someone should have told St. Ambrose to shut up, then, when he went to the church, where the election to replace Auxentius, Bishop of Milan, was telling place, to prevent an uproar.  It was during that speech that the unbaptized Ambrose was elected bishop.  I suppose the people were wrong to call for his ordination, seeing as how he was but still unbaptized; and I suppose the friend who's house he was hiding in after this election was wrong to have given him up, seeing as how he was but still unbaptized; and I suppose those bishops who ordained him to the episcopate were wrong to have done so when it was just a week prior that he had been yet unbaptized.
Did St. Ambrose appoint himself bishop?

Is this really a germane question?  
Yes, it is. You cited the example of St. Ambrose's election to the episcopacy as precedent to justify your self-appointed authority on this thread, so yes, my question is germane to our debate. Only if St. Ambrose appointed himself bishop is his example analogous to your defense of your authority to teach the Orthodox faith even though you're not yet Orthodox.

No, I cited St. Ambrose going to a church to give a speech during the election of the replacement for the bishop of Milan, as similar to this.  No one appointed St. Ambrose to go give a speech.
Title: Re: Orthodox view of the Armed Forces
Post by: PeterTheAleut on April 17, 2012, 02:30:50 AM
You're right Peter; I should do the Orthodox thing and chuck my reason at the door.  The mind was given by God for the sole purpose of searching the writings of the Saints.
You do realize I never counseled you to do that? What I DID ask you to do is to stop parading your own reasoning around as though it were the Orthodox teaching on the subject, especially considering that, IIRC, you're still a catechumen or newbie Orthodox who should be investing more energy into learning what the faith teaches rather than arguing as if you already know everything. Take ownership of your reasoning and call it what it is: your own opinions.

I suppose someone should have told St. Ambrose to shut up, then, when he went to the church, where the election to replace Auxentius, Bishop of Milan, was telling place, to prevent an uproar.  It was during that speech that the unbaptized Ambrose was elected bishop.  I suppose the people were wrong to call for his ordination, seeing as how he was but still unbaptized; and I suppose the friend who's house he was hiding in after this election was wrong to have given him up, seeing as how he was but still unbaptized; and I suppose those bishops who ordained him to the episcopate were wrong to have done so when it was just a week prior that he had been yet unbaptized.
Did St. Ambrose appoint himself bishop?

Is this really a germane question?  
Yes, it is. You cited the example of St. Ambrose's election to the episcopacy as precedent to justify your self-appointed authority on this thread, so yes, my question is germane to our debate. Only if St. Ambrose appointed himself bishop is his example analogous to your defense of your authority to teach the Orthodox faith even though you're not yet Orthodox.

No, I cited St. Ambrose going to a church to give a speech during the election of the replacement for the bishop of Milan, as similar to this.  No one appointed St. Ambrose to go give a speech.
But, as governor of the province of Milan, public speeches were part of his job description. Whereas it may indeed be true that St. Ambrose appointed himself to give a speech at the assembly that eventually elected him bishop, it is also true that he most likely gave the speech because he felt that his role as provincial governor placed on him the demand that he do so. Are you a civic authority as St. Ambrose was when he gave his speech? Does your role on this forum demand that you pontificate?
Title: Re: Orthodox view of the Armed Forces
Post by: JamesRottnek on April 17, 2012, 08:47:07 AM
You're right Peter; I should do the Orthodox thing and chuck my reason at the door.  The mind was given by God for the sole purpose of searching the writings of the Saints.
You do realize I never counseled you to do that? What I DID ask you to do is to stop parading your own reasoning around as though it were the Orthodox teaching on the subject, especially considering that, IIRC, you're still a catechumen or newbie Orthodox who should be investing more energy into learning what the faith teaches rather than arguing as if you already know everything. Take ownership of your reasoning and call it what it is: your own opinions.

I suppose someone should have told St. Ambrose to shut up, then, when he went to the church, where the election to replace Auxentius, Bishop of Milan, was telling place, to prevent an uproar.  It was during that speech that the unbaptized Ambrose was elected bishop.  I suppose the people were wrong to call for his ordination, seeing as how he was but still unbaptized; and I suppose the friend who's house he was hiding in after this election was wrong to have given him up, seeing as how he was but still unbaptized; and I suppose those bishops who ordained him to the episcopate were wrong to have done so when it was just a week prior that he had been yet unbaptized.
Did St. Ambrose appoint himself bishop?

Is this really a germane question?  
Yes, it is. You cited the example of St. Ambrose's election to the episcopacy as precedent to justify your self-appointed authority on this thread, so yes, my question is germane to our debate. Only if St. Ambrose appointed himself bishop is his example analogous to your defense of your authority to teach the Orthodox faith even though you're not yet Orthodox.

No, I cited St. Ambrose going to a church to give a speech during the election of the replacement for the bishop of Milan, as similar to this.  No one appointed St. Ambrose to go give a speech.
But, as governor of the province of Milan, public speeches were part of his job description. Whereas it may indeed be true that St. Ambrose appointed himself to give a speech at the assembly that eventually elected him bishop, it is also true that he most likely gave the speech because he felt that his role as provincial governor placed on him the demand that he do so. Are you a civic authority as St. Ambrose was when he gave his speech? Does your role on this forum demand that you pontificate?

So the Premier of China has a right to give speeches in Orthodox contexts, but I should refrain from giving an opinion?
Title: Re: Orthodox view of the Armed Forces
Post by: PeterTheAleut on April 17, 2012, 08:51:21 AM
You're right Peter; I should do the Orthodox thing and chuck my reason at the door.  The mind was given by God for the sole purpose of searching the writings of the Saints.
You do realize I never counseled you to do that? What I DID ask you to do is to stop parading your own reasoning around as though it were the Orthodox teaching on the subject, especially considering that, IIRC, you're still a catechumen or newbie Orthodox who should be investing more energy into learning what the faith teaches rather than arguing as if you already know everything. Take ownership of your reasoning and call it what it is: your own opinions.

I suppose someone should have told St. Ambrose to shut up, then, when he went to the church, where the election to replace Auxentius, Bishop of Milan, was telling place, to prevent an uproar.  It was during that speech that the unbaptized Ambrose was elected bishop.  I suppose the people were wrong to call for his ordination, seeing as how he was but still unbaptized; and I suppose the friend who's house he was hiding in after this election was wrong to have given him up, seeing as how he was but still unbaptized; and I suppose those bishops who ordained him to the episcopate were wrong to have done so when it was just a week prior that he had been yet unbaptized.
Did St. Ambrose appoint himself bishop?

Is this really a germane question?  
Yes, it is. You cited the example of St. Ambrose's election to the episcopacy as precedent to justify your self-appointed authority on this thread, so yes, my question is germane to our debate. Only if St. Ambrose appointed himself bishop is his example analogous to your defense of your authority to teach the Orthodox faith even though you're not yet Orthodox.

No, I cited St. Ambrose going to a church to give a speech during the election of the replacement for the bishop of Milan, as similar to this.  No one appointed St. Ambrose to go give a speech.
But, as governor of the province of Milan, public speeches were part of his job description. Whereas it may indeed be true that St. Ambrose appointed himself to give a speech at the assembly that eventually elected him bishop, it is also true that he most likely gave the speech because he felt that his role as provincial governor placed on him the demand that he do so. Are you a civic authority as St. Ambrose was when he gave his speech? Does your role on this forum demand that you pontificate?

So the Premier of China has a right to give speeches in Orthodox contexts, but I should refrain from giving an opinion?
No, I never said you should refrain from giving your opinion. Feel free to share your opinions as much as you want, but make sure you identify those opinions you share as nothing more than your personal opinions. The only thing I ask you to stop doing is passing your personal opinions off as the teachings of the Church.
Title: Re: Orthodox view of the Armed Forces
Post by: JamesRottnek on April 17, 2012, 11:35:38 AM
You're right Peter; I should do the Orthodox thing and chuck my reason at the door.  The mind was given by God for the sole purpose of searching the writings of the Saints.
You do realize I never counseled you to do that? What I DID ask you to do is to stop parading your own reasoning around as though it were the Orthodox teaching on the subject, especially considering that, IIRC, you're still a catechumen or newbie Orthodox who should be investing more energy into learning what the faith teaches rather than arguing as if you already know everything. Take ownership of your reasoning and call it what it is: your own opinions.

I suppose someone should have told St. Ambrose to shut up, then, when he went to the church, where the election to replace Auxentius, Bishop of Milan, was telling place, to prevent an uproar.  It was during that speech that the unbaptized Ambrose was elected bishop.  I suppose the people were wrong to call for his ordination, seeing as how he was but still unbaptized; and I suppose the friend who's house he was hiding in after this election was wrong to have given him up, seeing as how he was but still unbaptized; and I suppose those bishops who ordained him to the episcopate were wrong to have done so when it was just a week prior that he had been yet unbaptized.
Did St. Ambrose appoint himself bishop?

Is this really a germane question?  
Yes, it is. You cited the example of St. Ambrose's election to the episcopacy as precedent to justify your self-appointed authority on this thread, so yes, my question is germane to our debate. Only if St. Ambrose appointed himself bishop is his example analogous to your defense of your authority to teach the Orthodox faith even though you're not yet Orthodox.

No, I cited St. Ambrose going to a church to give a speech during the election of the replacement for the bishop of Milan, as similar to this.  No one appointed St. Ambrose to go give a speech.
But, as governor of the province of Milan, public speeches were part of his job description. Whereas it may indeed be true that St. Ambrose appointed himself to give a speech at the assembly that eventually elected him bishop, it is also true that he most likely gave the speech because he felt that his role as provincial governor placed on him the demand that he do so. Are you a civic authority as St. Ambrose was when he gave his speech? Does your role on this forum demand that you pontificate?

So the Premier of China has a right to give speeches in Orthodox contexts, but I should refrain from giving an opinion?
No, I never said you should refrain from giving your opinion. Feel free to share your opinions as much as you want, but make sure you identify those opinions you share as nothing more than your personal opinions. The only thing I ask you to stop doing is passing your personal opinions off as the teachings of the Church.

When did I pass my opinion off as the Church's?  Unless I state "Orthodoxy teaches..." or "The Orthodox believe..." why should someone assume I am speaking other than as a private individual?
Title: Re: Orthodox view of the Armed Forces
Post by: PeterTheAleut on April 17, 2012, 11:45:33 AM
You're right Peter; I should do the Orthodox thing and chuck my reason at the door.  The mind was given by God for the sole purpose of searching the writings of the Saints.
You do realize I never counseled you to do that? What I DID ask you to do is to stop parading your own reasoning around as though it were the Orthodox teaching on the subject, especially considering that, IIRC, you're still a catechumen or newbie Orthodox who should be investing more energy into learning what the faith teaches rather than arguing as if you already know everything. Take ownership of your reasoning and call it what it is: your own opinions.

I suppose someone should have told St. Ambrose to shut up, then, when he went to the church, where the election to replace Auxentius, Bishop of Milan, was telling place, to prevent an uproar.  It was during that speech that the unbaptized Ambrose was elected bishop.  I suppose the people were wrong to call for his ordination, seeing as how he was but still unbaptized; and I suppose the friend who's house he was hiding in after this election was wrong to have given him up, seeing as how he was but still unbaptized; and I suppose those bishops who ordained him to the episcopate were wrong to have done so when it was just a week prior that he had been yet unbaptized.
Did St. Ambrose appoint himself bishop?

Is this really a germane question?  
Yes, it is. You cited the example of St. Ambrose's election to the episcopacy as precedent to justify your self-appointed authority on this thread, so yes, my question is germane to our debate. Only if St. Ambrose appointed himself bishop is his example analogous to your defense of your authority to teach the Orthodox faith even though you're not yet Orthodox.

No, I cited St. Ambrose going to a church to give a speech during the election of the replacement for the bishop of Milan, as similar to this.  No one appointed St. Ambrose to go give a speech.
But, as governor of the province of Milan, public speeches were part of his job description. Whereas it may indeed be true that St. Ambrose appointed himself to give a speech at the assembly that eventually elected him bishop, it is also true that he most likely gave the speech because he felt that his role as provincial governor placed on him the demand that he do so. Are you a civic authority as St. Ambrose was when he gave his speech? Does your role on this forum demand that you pontificate?

So the Premier of China has a right to give speeches in Orthodox contexts, but I should refrain from giving an opinion?
No, I never said you should refrain from giving your opinion. Feel free to share your opinions as much as you want, but make sure you identify those opinions you share as nothing more than your personal opinions. The only thing I ask you to stop doing is passing your personal opinions off as the teachings of the Church.

When did I pass my opinion off as the Church's?  Unless I state "Orthodoxy teaches..." or "The Orthodox believe..." why should someone assume I am speaking other than as a private individual?
Someone asked if it's possible to kill in war and still be Orthodox. You said, "Absolutely," and went on to defend this assertion with your interpretation of Scripture. When I challenged you on that, you pointed out the many Orthodox warrior-saints as evidence of the "Orthodoxy" of your position. For one, I read the question as requesting a definitive Orthodox response. And for two, you said nothing in your response to indicate that you were giving anything different and made a clear attempt to defend the "Orthodoxy" of your point of view when questioned. Therefore, the clear implication is that you were passing off your personal interpretation of Scripture and your own logic as representative of the Orthodox Tradition.

I also think that your earlier aggressive pontification on this thread bears that out even more.
Title: Re: Orthodox view of the Armed Forces
Post by: vamrat on April 17, 2012, 02:06:21 PM
You're right Peter; I should do the Orthodox thing and chuck my reason at the door.  The mind was given by God for the sole purpose of searching the writings of the Saints.
You do realize I never counseled you to do that? What I DID ask you to do is to stop parading your own reasoning around as though it were the Orthodox teaching on the subject, especially considering that, IIRC, you're still a catechumen or newbie Orthodox who should be investing more energy into learning what the faith teaches rather than arguing as if you already know everything. Take ownership of your reasoning and call it what it is: your own opinions.

I suppose someone should have told St. Ambrose to shut up, then, when he went to the church, where the election to replace Auxentius, Bishop of Milan, was telling place, to prevent an uproar.  It was during that speech that the unbaptized Ambrose was elected bishop.  I suppose the people were wrong to call for his ordination, seeing as how he was but still unbaptized; and I suppose the friend who's house he was hiding in after this election was wrong to have given him up, seeing as how he was but still unbaptized; and I suppose those bishops who ordained him to the episcopate were wrong to have done so when it was just a week prior that he had been yet unbaptized.
Did St. Ambrose appoint himself bishop?

Is this really a germane question?  
Yes, it is. You cited the example of St. Ambrose's election to the episcopacy as precedent to justify your self-appointed authority on this thread, so yes, my question is germane to our debate. Only if St. Ambrose appointed himself bishop is his example analogous to your defense of your authority to teach the Orthodox faith even though you're not yet Orthodox.

No, I cited St. Ambrose going to a church to give a speech during the election of the replacement for the bishop of Milan, as similar to this.  No one appointed St. Ambrose to go give a speech.
But, as governor of the province of Milan, public speeches were part of his job description. Whereas it may indeed be true that St. Ambrose appointed himself to give a speech at the assembly that eventually elected him bishop, it is also true that he most likely gave the speech because he felt that his role as provincial governor placed on him the demand that he do so. Are you a civic authority as St. Ambrose was when he gave his speech? Does your role on this forum demand that you pontificate?

So the Premier of China has a right to give speeches in Orthodox contexts, but I should refrain from giving an opinion?
No, I never said you should refrain from giving your opinion. Feel free to share your opinions as much as you want, but make sure you identify those opinions you share as nothing more than your personal opinions. The only thing I ask you to stop doing is passing your personal opinions off as the teachings of the Church.

When did I pass my opinion off as the Church's?  Unless I state "Orthodoxy teaches..." or "The Orthodox believe..." why should someone assume I am speaking other than as a private individual?
Someone asked if it's possible to kill in war and still be Orthodox. You said, "Absolutely," and went on to defend this assertion with your interpretation of Scripture. When I challenged you on that, you pointed out the many Orthodox warrior-saints as evidence of the "Orthodoxy" of your position. For one, I read the question as requesting a definitive Orthodox response. And for two, you said nothing in your response to indicate that you were giving anything different and made a clear attempt to defend the "Orthodoxy" of your point of view when questioned. Therefore, the clear implication is that you were passing off your personal interpretation of Scripture and your own logic as representative of the Orthodox Tradition.

I also think that your earlier aggressive pontification on this thread bears that out even more.

Alright, time to settle this once and for all.  Would an Orthodox Saint be considered Orthodox?

St. Olaf was killed in battle...so up until the event of his very death he was engaged in combat. 
St. Olaf is an Orthodox Saint.
If an Orthodox Saint is Orthodox, then someone must be able to take part in war and still be Orthodox, even if they are unable to attend confession afterwards due to an unfortunate case of death.

Or do you deny St. Olaf's Sainthood?
Title: Re: Orthodox view of the Armed Forces
Post by: PeterTheAleut on April 17, 2012, 02:28:36 PM
You're right Peter; I should do the Orthodox thing and chuck my reason at the door.  The mind was given by God for the sole purpose of searching the writings of the Saints.
You do realize I never counseled you to do that? What I DID ask you to do is to stop parading your own reasoning around as though it were the Orthodox teaching on the subject, especially considering that, IIRC, you're still a catechumen or newbie Orthodox who should be investing more energy into learning what the faith teaches rather than arguing as if you already know everything. Take ownership of your reasoning and call it what it is: your own opinions.

I suppose someone should have told St. Ambrose to shut up, then, when he went to the church, where the election to replace Auxentius, Bishop of Milan, was telling place, to prevent an uproar.  It was during that speech that the unbaptized Ambrose was elected bishop.  I suppose the people were wrong to call for his ordination, seeing as how he was but still unbaptized; and I suppose the friend who's house he was hiding in after this election was wrong to have given him up, seeing as how he was but still unbaptized; and I suppose those bishops who ordained him to the episcopate were wrong to have done so when it was just a week prior that he had been yet unbaptized.
Did St. Ambrose appoint himself bishop?

Is this really a germane question?  
Yes, it is. You cited the example of St. Ambrose's election to the episcopacy as precedent to justify your self-appointed authority on this thread, so yes, my question is germane to our debate. Only if St. Ambrose appointed himself bishop is his example analogous to your defense of your authority to teach the Orthodox faith even though you're not yet Orthodox.

No, I cited St. Ambrose going to a church to give a speech during the election of the replacement for the bishop of Milan, as similar to this.  No one appointed St. Ambrose to go give a speech.
But, as governor of the province of Milan, public speeches were part of his job description. Whereas it may indeed be true that St. Ambrose appointed himself to give a speech at the assembly that eventually elected him bishop, it is also true that he most likely gave the speech because he felt that his role as provincial governor placed on him the demand that he do so. Are you a civic authority as St. Ambrose was when he gave his speech? Does your role on this forum demand that you pontificate?

So the Premier of China has a right to give speeches in Orthodox contexts, but I should refrain from giving an opinion?
No, I never said you should refrain from giving your opinion. Feel free to share your opinions as much as you want, but make sure you identify those opinions you share as nothing more than your personal opinions. The only thing I ask you to stop doing is passing your personal opinions off as the teachings of the Church.

When did I pass my opinion off as the Church's?  Unless I state "Orthodoxy teaches..." or "The Orthodox believe..." why should someone assume I am speaking other than as a private individual?
Someone asked if it's possible to kill in war and still be Orthodox. You said, "Absolutely," and went on to defend this assertion with your interpretation of Scripture. When I challenged you on that, you pointed out the many Orthodox warrior-saints as evidence of the "Orthodoxy" of your position. For one, I read the question as requesting a definitive Orthodox response. And for two, you said nothing in your response to indicate that you were giving anything different and made a clear attempt to defend the "Orthodoxy" of your point of view when questioned. Therefore, the clear implication is that you were passing off your personal interpretation of Scripture and your own logic as representative of the Orthodox Tradition.

I also think that your earlier aggressive pontification on this thread bears that out even more.

Alright, time to settle this once and for all.  Would an Orthodox Saint be considered Orthodox?

St. Olaf was killed in battle...so up until the event of his very death he was engaged in combat. 
St. Olaf is an Orthodox Saint.
If an Orthodox Saint is Orthodox, then someone must be able to take part in war and still be Orthodox, even if they are unable to attend confession afterwards due to an unfortunate case of death.

Or do you deny St. Olaf's Sainthood?
Are you replying to me? If so, you're barking at the wrong mailman.
Title: Re: Orthodox view of the Armed Forces
Post by: vamrat on April 17, 2012, 03:01:20 PM
You're right Peter; I should do the Orthodox thing and chuck my reason at the door.  The mind was given by God for the sole purpose of searching the writings of the Saints.
You do realize I never counseled you to do that? What I DID ask you to do is to stop parading your own reasoning around as though it were the Orthodox teaching on the subject, especially considering that, IIRC, you're still a catechumen or newbie Orthodox who should be investing more energy into learning what the faith teaches rather than arguing as if you already know everything. Take ownership of your reasoning and call it what it is: your own opinions.

I suppose someone should have told St. Ambrose to shut up, then, when he went to the church, where the election to replace Auxentius, Bishop of Milan, was telling place, to prevent an uproar.  It was during that speech that the unbaptized Ambrose was elected bishop.  I suppose the people were wrong to call for his ordination, seeing as how he was but still unbaptized; and I suppose the friend who's house he was hiding in after this election was wrong to have given him up, seeing as how he was but still unbaptized; and I suppose those bishops who ordained him to the episcopate were wrong to have done so when it was just a week prior that he had been yet unbaptized.
Did St. Ambrose appoint himself bishop?

Is this really a germane question?  
Yes, it is. You cited the example of St. Ambrose's election to the episcopacy as precedent to justify your self-appointed authority on this thread, so yes, my question is germane to our debate. Only if St. Ambrose appointed himself bishop is his example analogous to your defense of your authority to teach the Orthodox faith even though you're not yet Orthodox.

No, I cited St. Ambrose going to a church to give a speech during the election of the replacement for the bishop of Milan, as similar to this.  No one appointed St. Ambrose to go give a speech.
But, as governor of the province of Milan, public speeches were part of his job description. Whereas it may indeed be true that St. Ambrose appointed himself to give a speech at the assembly that eventually elected him bishop, it is also true that he most likely gave the speech because he felt that his role as provincial governor placed on him the demand that he do so. Are you a civic authority as St. Ambrose was when he gave his speech? Does your role on this forum demand that you pontificate?

So the Premier of China has a right to give speeches in Orthodox contexts, but I should refrain from giving an opinion?
No, I never said you should refrain from giving your opinion. Feel free to share your opinions as much as you want, but make sure you identify those opinions you share as nothing more than your personal opinions. The only thing I ask you to stop doing is passing your personal opinions off as the teachings of the Church.

When did I pass my opinion off as the Church's?  Unless I state "Orthodoxy teaches..." or "The Orthodox believe..." why should someone assume I am speaking other than as a private individual?
Someone asked if it's possible to kill in war and still be Orthodox. You said, "Absolutely," and went on to defend this assertion with your interpretation of Scripture. When I challenged you on that, you pointed out the many Orthodox warrior-saints as evidence of the "Orthodoxy" of your position. For one, I read the question as requesting a definitive Orthodox response. And for two, you said nothing in your response to indicate that you were giving anything different and made a clear attempt to defend the "Orthodoxy" of your point of view when questioned. Therefore, the clear implication is that you were passing off your personal interpretation of Scripture and your own logic as representative of the Orthodox Tradition.

I also think that your earlier aggressive pontification on this thread bears that out even more.

Alright, time to settle this once and for all.  Would an Orthodox Saint be considered Orthodox?

St. Olaf was killed in battle...so up until the event of his very death he was engaged in combat.  
St. Olaf is an Orthodox Saint.
If an Orthodox Saint is Orthodox, then someone must be able to take part in war and still be Orthodox, even if they are unable to attend confession afterwards due to an unfortunate case of death.

Or do you deny St. Olaf's Sainthood?
Are you replying to me? If so, you're barking at the wrong mailman.

I was.  I'm barking because your entire argument is that since James is not a Saint or a Holy Father his opinion does not carry any weight.  Well, his opinion not only stands to reason, but it also is backed up by at least one example which I have provided.

So I put it to you, which Holy Father blocked St. Olaf's canonization?

Which Holy Father renounced the Battle of the Milvian Bridge?  When God spoke to St. Constantine, you might note that He wasn't saying "put away your sword" but "in this sign you shall conquer".  

James brought up the Old Testament.  You asked which Holy Father he could quote.  How about Moses?  You know, a man who spoke to God in person.  God didn't tell the Israelites to go into Canaan and set up a drum circle, He not only allowed them to fight their enemies, but He often aided them or dispensed battle tactics.  When Samson was about to die, God gave him his strength back, not so that he could endure his torment, but so that he could KILL THOUSANDS OF THE ENEMY.

I think there are plenty of examples that back up James' assertion.  So, do you have any writings from the Holy Fathers that state clearly that war is NEVER allowed?  I would also be interested to know how they explained the examples from the Lives of the Saints and from the Holy Scripture.  
Title: Re: Orthodox view of the Armed Forces
Post by: lord doog on April 17, 2012, 03:20:52 PM
Quote
When God spoke to St. Constantine, you might note that He wasn't saying "put away your sword" but "in this sign you shall conquer".

As another example, God gave Saint Philopateer Mercurius a second sword with which to kill the barbarians, as long as he remembered the Lord during his coming tortures.
Title: Re: Orthodox view of the Armed Forces
Post by: PeterTheAleut on April 17, 2012, 03:49:33 PM
You're right Peter; I should do the Orthodox thing and chuck my reason at the door.  The mind was given by God for the sole purpose of searching the writings of the Saints.
You do realize I never counseled you to do that? What I DID ask you to do is to stop parading your own reasoning around as though it were the Orthodox teaching on the subject, especially considering that, IIRC, you're still a catechumen or newbie Orthodox who should be investing more energy into learning what the faith teaches rather than arguing as if you already know everything. Take ownership of your reasoning and call it what it is: your own opinions.

I suppose someone should have told St. Ambrose to shut up, then, when he went to the church, where the election to replace Auxentius, Bishop of Milan, was telling place, to prevent an uproar.  It was during that speech that the unbaptized Ambrose was elected bishop.  I suppose the people were wrong to call for his ordination, seeing as how he was but still unbaptized; and I suppose the friend who's house he was hiding in after this election was wrong to have given him up, seeing as how he was but still unbaptized; and I suppose those bishops who ordained him to the episcopate were wrong to have done so when it was just a week prior that he had been yet unbaptized.
Did St. Ambrose appoint himself bishop?

Is this really a germane question?  
Yes, it is. You cited the example of St. Ambrose's election to the episcopacy as precedent to justify your self-appointed authority on this thread, so yes, my question is germane to our debate. Only if St. Ambrose appointed himself bishop is his example analogous to your defense of your authority to teach the Orthodox faith even though you're not yet Orthodox.

No, I cited St. Ambrose going to a church to give a speech during the election of the replacement for the bishop of Milan, as similar to this.  No one appointed St. Ambrose to go give a speech.
But, as governor of the province of Milan, public speeches were part of his job description. Whereas it may indeed be true that St. Ambrose appointed himself to give a speech at the assembly that eventually elected him bishop, it is also true that he most likely gave the speech because he felt that his role as provincial governor placed on him the demand that he do so. Are you a civic authority as St. Ambrose was when he gave his speech? Does your role on this forum demand that you pontificate?

So the Premier of China has a right to give speeches in Orthodox contexts, but I should refrain from giving an opinion?
No, I never said you should refrain from giving your opinion. Feel free to share your opinions as much as you want, but make sure you identify those opinions you share as nothing more than your personal opinions. The only thing I ask you to stop doing is passing your personal opinions off as the teachings of the Church.

When did I pass my opinion off as the Church's?  Unless I state "Orthodoxy teaches..." or "The Orthodox believe..." why should someone assume I am speaking other than as a private individual?
Someone asked if it's possible to kill in war and still be Orthodox. You said, "Absolutely," and went on to defend this assertion with your interpretation of Scripture. When I challenged you on that, you pointed out the many Orthodox warrior-saints as evidence of the "Orthodoxy" of your position. For one, I read the question as requesting a definitive Orthodox response. And for two, you said nothing in your response to indicate that you were giving anything different and made a clear attempt to defend the "Orthodoxy" of your point of view when questioned. Therefore, the clear implication is that you were passing off your personal interpretation of Scripture and your own logic as representative of the Orthodox Tradition.

I also think that your earlier aggressive pontification on this thread bears that out even more.

Alright, time to settle this once and for all.  Would an Orthodox Saint be considered Orthodox?

St. Olaf was killed in battle...so up until the event of his very death he was engaged in combat.  
St. Olaf is an Orthodox Saint.
If an Orthodox Saint is Orthodox, then someone must be able to take part in war and still be Orthodox, even if they are unable to attend confession afterwards due to an unfortunate case of death.

Or do you deny St. Olaf's Sainthood?
Are you replying to me? If so, you're barking at the wrong mailman.

I was.  I'm barking because your entire argument is that since James is not a Saint or a Holy Father his opinion does not carry any weight.
If someone asks for the Church's teaching on the matter, then yes, James's opinion doesn't carry any weight, and neither does yours, and neither does mine.

Well, his opinion not only stands to reason, but it also is backed up by at least one example which I have provided.

So I put it to you, which Holy Father blocked St. Olaf's canonization?

Which Holy Father renounced the Battle of the Milvian Bridge?  When God spoke to St. Constantine, you might note that He wasn't saying "put away your sword" but "in this sign you shall conquer".  
You do realize that I'm not arguing that James is wrong? That I'm not advocating a point of view opposite his? Why would I do that? I've served in the military and still regard military service as an honorable occupation, and I've even argued AGAINST pacifism on other threads, citing such examples as St. Sergius of Radonezh and his blessing of soldiers to wage war against the Tatars. Do you somehow expect me to be inconsistent? Someone asked for the Church's teaching on the matter, and all James offered was his own opinion. I merely wanted him to cite sources that show that his opinion has the support of Tradition and is not just more of his pontificating.

James brought up the Old Testament.  You asked which Holy Father he could quote.  How about Moses?  You know, a man who spoke to God in person.  God didn't tell the Israelites to go into Canaan and set up a drum circle, He not only allowed them to fight their enemies, but He often aided them or dispensed battle tactics.  When Samson was about to die, God gave him his strength back, not so that he could endure his torment, but so that he could KILL THOUSANDS OF THE ENEMY.
You do realize that we're no longer living in the time of the Old Testament? What weight does it really have in this discussion of Church teaching?

I think there are plenty of examples that back up James' assertion.  So, do you have any writings from the Holy Fathers that state clearly that war is NEVER allowed?
Again, not my assertion.

I would also be interested to know how they explained the examples from the Lives of the Saints and from the Holy Scripture.  
As would I.
Title: Re: Orthodox view of the Armed Forces
Post by: Schultz on April 17, 2012, 03:52:17 PM
It still amazes me, after all this time, that people mistake PtA's often friendly (meaning, generally supportive of the premise) insistence on the use of more authoritative sources than one's own personal opinion as some sort of argument against the premise.

He may be a bit anal about sourcing, but he's not arguing with you.  More often than not, he's trying to help you argue whatever you're saying better.
Title: Re: Orthodox view of the Armed Forces
Post by: Shanghaiski on April 17, 2012, 04:12:39 PM
It still amazes me, after all this time, that people mistake PtA's often friendly (meaning, generally supportive of the premise) insistence on the use of more authoritative sources than one's own personal opinion as some sort of argument against the premise.

He may be a bit anal about sourcing, but he's not arguing with you.  More often than not, he's trying to help you argue whatever you're saying better.

Just as, sometimes, dismemberment is necessary to save life.
Title: Re: Orthodox view of the Armed Forces
Post by: vamrat on April 17, 2012, 04:32:45 PM
Schultz, I don't think I could say it better than Shanghaiski, so I'm not going to try. 

Peter, if I've mistaken your position, which it looks like I have, then I apologize.  I think you came off as a nitpick when responding to James.  Perhaps that was your intent.  Or perhaps you were trying to support his argument as Schultz suggested.  I think there would have been a better, less contradictory way to have put it.

But oh well, it looks like we have the same opinion on the matter, just coming at it from different directions, so no use arguing about it.
Title: Re: Orthodox view of the Armed Forces
Post by: Schultz on April 17, 2012, 05:02:16 PM
I'm not saying I agree with PtA's "helpful tactics," but that people who should know better by now continue to assume that he's being contradictory as opposed to just being pedantic.
Title: Re: Orthodox view of the Armed Forces
Post by: JamesRottnek on April 17, 2012, 09:16:07 PM
You're right Peter; I should do the Orthodox thing and chuck my reason at the door.  The mind was given by God for the sole purpose of searching the writings of the Saints.
You do realize I never counseled you to do that? What I DID ask you to do is to stop parading your own reasoning around as though it were the Orthodox teaching on the subject, especially considering that, IIRC, you're still a catechumen or newbie Orthodox who should be investing more energy into learning what the faith teaches rather than arguing as if you already know everything. Take ownership of your reasoning and call it what it is: your own opinions.

I suppose someone should have told St. Ambrose to shut up, then, when he went to the church, where the election to replace Auxentius, Bishop of Milan, was telling place, to prevent an uproar.  It was during that speech that the unbaptized Ambrose was elected bishop.  I suppose the people were wrong to call for his ordination, seeing as how he was but still unbaptized; and I suppose the friend who's house he was hiding in after this election was wrong to have given him up, seeing as how he was but still unbaptized; and I suppose those bishops who ordained him to the episcopate were wrong to have done so when it was just a week prior that he had been yet unbaptized.
Did St. Ambrose appoint himself bishop?

Is this really a germane question?  
Yes, it is. You cited the example of St. Ambrose's election to the episcopacy as precedent to justify your self-appointed authority on this thread, so yes, my question is germane to our debate. Only if St. Ambrose appointed himself bishop is his example analogous to your defense of your authority to teach the Orthodox faith even though you're not yet Orthodox.

No, I cited St. Ambrose going to a church to give a speech during the election of the replacement for the bishop of Milan, as similar to this.  No one appointed St. Ambrose to go give a speech.
But, as governor of the province of Milan, public speeches were part of his job description. Whereas it may indeed be true that St. Ambrose appointed himself to give a speech at the assembly that eventually elected him bishop, it is also true that he most likely gave the speech because he felt that his role as provincial governor placed on him the demand that he do so. Are you a civic authority as St. Ambrose was when he gave his speech? Does your role on this forum demand that you pontificate?

So the Premier of China has a right to give speeches in Orthodox contexts, but I should refrain from giving an opinion?
No, I never said you should refrain from giving your opinion. Feel free to share your opinions as much as you want, but make sure you identify those opinions you share as nothing more than your personal opinions. The only thing I ask you to stop doing is passing your personal opinions off as the teachings of the Church.

When did I pass my opinion off as the Church's?  Unless I state "Orthodoxy teaches..." or "The Orthodox believe..." why should someone assume I am speaking other than as a private individual?
Someone asked if it's possible to kill in war and still be Orthodox. You said, "Absolutely," and went on to defend this assertion with your interpretation of Scripture. When I challenged you on that, you pointed out the many Orthodox warrior-saints as evidence of the "Orthodoxy" of your position. For one, I read the question as requesting a definitive Orthodox response. And for two, you said nothing in your response to indicate that you were giving anything different and made a clear attempt to defend the "Orthodoxy" of your point of view when questioned. Therefore, the clear implication is that you were passing off your personal interpretation of Scripture and your own logic as representative of the Orthodox Tradition.

I also think that your earlier aggressive pontification on this thread bears that out even more.

As I said, unless I state "Orthodoxy teaches..." or "The Orthodox believe..." one should not assume I am speaking as anything other than a private individual.  The fact that you assume people intend to speak firstly for the Church and only secondarily for themselves is your problem, not mine.
Title: Re: Orthodox view of the Armed Forces
Post by: PeterTheAleut on April 17, 2012, 09:24:53 PM
You're right Peter; I should do the Orthodox thing and chuck my reason at the door.  The mind was given by God for the sole purpose of searching the writings of the Saints.
You do realize I never counseled you to do that? What I DID ask you to do is to stop parading your own reasoning around as though it were the Orthodox teaching on the subject, especially considering that, IIRC, you're still a catechumen or newbie Orthodox who should be investing more energy into learning what the faith teaches rather than arguing as if you already know everything. Take ownership of your reasoning and call it what it is: your own opinions.

I suppose someone should have told St. Ambrose to shut up, then, when he went to the church, where the election to replace Auxentius, Bishop of Milan, was telling place, to prevent an uproar.  It was during that speech that the unbaptized Ambrose was elected bishop.  I suppose the people were wrong to call for his ordination, seeing as how he was but still unbaptized; and I suppose the friend who's house he was hiding in after this election was wrong to have given him up, seeing as how he was but still unbaptized; and I suppose those bishops who ordained him to the episcopate were wrong to have done so when it was just a week prior that he had been yet unbaptized.
Did St. Ambrose appoint himself bishop?

Is this really a germane question?  
Yes, it is. You cited the example of St. Ambrose's election to the episcopacy as precedent to justify your self-appointed authority on this thread, so yes, my question is germane to our debate. Only if St. Ambrose appointed himself bishop is his example analogous to your defense of your authority to teach the Orthodox faith even though you're not yet Orthodox.

No, I cited St. Ambrose going to a church to give a speech during the election of the replacement for the bishop of Milan, as similar to this.  No one appointed St. Ambrose to go give a speech.
But, as governor of the province of Milan, public speeches were part of his job description. Whereas it may indeed be true that St. Ambrose appointed himself to give a speech at the assembly that eventually elected him bishop, it is also true that he most likely gave the speech because he felt that his role as provincial governor placed on him the demand that he do so. Are you a civic authority as St. Ambrose was when he gave his speech? Does your role on this forum demand that you pontificate?

So the Premier of China has a right to give speeches in Orthodox contexts, but I should refrain from giving an opinion?
No, I never said you should refrain from giving your opinion. Feel free to share your opinions as much as you want, but make sure you identify those opinions you share as nothing more than your personal opinions. The only thing I ask you to stop doing is passing your personal opinions off as the teachings of the Church.

When did I pass my opinion off as the Church's?  Unless I state "Orthodoxy teaches..." or "The Orthodox believe..." why should someone assume I am speaking other than as a private individual?
Someone asked if it's possible to kill in war and still be Orthodox. You said, "Absolutely," and went on to defend this assertion with your interpretation of Scripture. When I challenged you on that, you pointed out the many Orthodox warrior-saints as evidence of the "Orthodoxy" of your position. For one, I read the question as requesting a definitive Orthodox response. And for two, you said nothing in your response to indicate that you were giving anything different and made a clear attempt to defend the "Orthodoxy" of your point of view when questioned. Therefore, the clear implication is that you were passing off your personal interpretation of Scripture and your own logic as representative of the Orthodox Tradition.

I also think that your earlier aggressive pontification on this thread bears that out even more.

As I said, unless I state "Orthodoxy teaches..." or "The Orthodox believe..." one should not assume I am speaking as anything other than a private individual.  The fact that you assume people intend to speak firstly for the Church and only secondarily for themselves is your problem, not mine.
You don't think you could learn how to communicate better so people can understand you correctly?
Title: Re: Orthodox view of the Armed Forces
Post by: JamesR on April 17, 2012, 09:52:38 PM
Are there any official teachings about this? I ask because I'm considering serving a contract in the Navy to help pay for college.
Title: Re: Orthodox view of the Armed Forces
Post by: TheMathematician on April 17, 2012, 10:10:42 PM
Are there any official teachings about this? I ask because I'm considering serving a contract in the Navy to help pay for college.

honestly, my two cents

1. ignore all the drivel on this thread
2. ask your priest
Title: Re: Orthodox view of the Armed Forces
Post by: vamrat on April 17, 2012, 10:28:00 PM
You're right Peter; I should do the Orthodox thing and chuck my reason at the door.  The mind was given by God for the sole purpose of searching the writings of the Saints.
You do realize I never counseled you to do that? What I DID ask you to do is to stop parading your own reasoning around as though it were the Orthodox teaching on the subject, especially considering that, IIRC, you're still a catechumen or newbie Orthodox who should be investing more energy into learning what the faith teaches rather than arguing as if you already know everything. Take ownership of your reasoning and call it what it is: your own opinions.

I suppose someone should have told St. Ambrose to shut up, then, when he went to the church, where the election to replace Auxentius, Bishop of Milan, was telling place, to prevent an uproar.  It was during that speech that the unbaptized Ambrose was elected bishop.  I suppose the people were wrong to call for his ordination, seeing as how he was but still unbaptized; and I suppose the friend who's house he was hiding in after this election was wrong to have given him up, seeing as how he was but still unbaptized; and I suppose those bishops who ordained him to the episcopate were wrong to have done so when it was just a week prior that he had been yet unbaptized.
Did St. Ambrose appoint himself bishop?

Is this really a germane question?  
Yes, it is. You cited the example of St. Ambrose's election to the episcopacy as precedent to justify your self-appointed authority on this thread, so yes, my question is germane to our debate. Only if St. Ambrose appointed himself bishop is his example analogous to your defense of your authority to teach the Orthodox faith even though you're not yet Orthodox.

No, I cited St. Ambrose going to a church to give a speech during the election of the replacement for the bishop of Milan, as similar to this.  No one appointed St. Ambrose to go give a speech.
But, as governor of the province of Milan, public speeches were part of his job description. Whereas it may indeed be true that St. Ambrose appointed himself to give a speech at the assembly that eventually elected him bishop, it is also true that he most likely gave the speech because he felt that his role as provincial governor placed on him the demand that he do so. Are you a civic authority as St. Ambrose was when he gave his speech? Does your role on this forum demand that you pontificate?

So the Premier of China has a right to give speeches in Orthodox contexts, but I should refrain from giving an opinion?
No, I never said you should refrain from giving your opinion. Feel free to share your opinions as much as you want, but make sure you identify those opinions you share as nothing more than your personal opinions. The only thing I ask you to stop doing is passing your personal opinions off as the teachings of the Church.

When did I pass my opinion off as the Church's?  Unless I state "Orthodoxy teaches..." or "The Orthodox believe..." why should someone assume I am speaking other than as a private individual?
Someone asked if it's possible to kill in war and still be Orthodox. You said, "Absolutely," and went on to defend this assertion with your interpretation of Scripture. When I challenged you on that, you pointed out the many Orthodox warrior-saints as evidence of the "Orthodoxy" of your position. For one, I read the question as requesting a definitive Orthodox response. And for two, you said nothing in your response to indicate that you were giving anything different and made a clear attempt to defend the "Orthodoxy" of your point of view when questioned. Therefore, the clear implication is that you were passing off your personal interpretation of Scripture and your own logic as representative of the Orthodox Tradition.

I also think that your earlier aggressive pontification on this thread bears that out even more.

As I said, unless I state "Orthodoxy teaches..." or "The Orthodox believe..." one should not assume I am speaking as anything other than a private individual.  The fact that you assume people intend to speak firstly for the Church and only secondarily for themselves is your problem, not mine.
You don't think you could learn how to communicate better so people can understand you correctly?

Define irony...
Title: Re: Orthodox view of the Armed Forces
Post by: William on April 17, 2012, 11:17:57 PM
God directly ordered the Israelites to commit genocide.

OT tribal war stories are good things to base our Christian morality on, huh?
Title: Re: Orthodox view of the Armed Forces
Post by: Gebre Menfes Kidus on April 17, 2012, 11:41:35 PM
God directly ordered the Israelites to commit genocide.

OT tribal war stories are good things to base our Christian morality on, huh?


Right. God also ordered the Israelites to offer animal sacrifices to atone for sins, and to stone disobedient children and adulterous women; but I don't see Christians arguing that those commands are still in effect. But somehow, when it comes to justifying violence, most Christians selectively appeal to the Old Testament. I have said it before, and I will stand by it: violence is an idol that far too many Christians continue to worship.


Selam
Title: Re: Orthodox view of the Armed Forces
Post by: JamesRottnek on April 18, 2012, 01:28:52 AM
You're right Peter; I should do the Orthodox thing and chuck my reason at the door.  The mind was given by God for the sole purpose of searching the writings of the Saints.
You do realize I never counseled you to do that? What I DID ask you to do is to stop parading your own reasoning around as though it were the Orthodox teaching on the subject, especially considering that, IIRC, you're still a catechumen or newbie Orthodox who should be investing more energy into learning what the faith teaches rather than arguing as if you already know everything. Take ownership of your reasoning and call it what it is: your own opinions.

I suppose someone should have told St. Ambrose to shut up, then, when he went to the church, where the election to replace Auxentius, Bishop of Milan, was telling place, to prevent an uproar.  It was during that speech that the unbaptized Ambrose was elected bishop.  I suppose the people were wrong to call for his ordination, seeing as how he was but still unbaptized; and I suppose the friend who's house he was hiding in after this election was wrong to have given him up, seeing as how he was but still unbaptized; and I suppose those bishops who ordained him to the episcopate were wrong to have done so when it was just a week prior that he had been yet unbaptized.
Did St. Ambrose appoint himself bishop?

Is this really a germane question?  
Yes, it is. You cited the example of St. Ambrose's election to the episcopacy as precedent to justify your self-appointed authority on this thread, so yes, my question is germane to our debate. Only if St. Ambrose appointed himself bishop is his example analogous to your defense of your authority to teach the Orthodox faith even though you're not yet Orthodox.

No, I cited St. Ambrose going to a church to give a speech during the election of the replacement for the bishop of Milan, as similar to this.  No one appointed St. Ambrose to go give a speech.
But, as governor of the province of Milan, public speeches were part of his job description. Whereas it may indeed be true that St. Ambrose appointed himself to give a speech at the assembly that eventually elected him bishop, it is also true that he most likely gave the speech because he felt that his role as provincial governor placed on him the demand that he do so. Are you a civic authority as St. Ambrose was when he gave his speech? Does your role on this forum demand that you pontificate?

So the Premier of China has a right to give speeches in Orthodox contexts, but I should refrain from giving an opinion?
No, I never said you should refrain from giving your opinion. Feel free to share your opinions as much as you want, but make sure you identify those opinions you share as nothing more than your personal opinions. The only thing I ask you to stop doing is passing your personal opinions off as the teachings of the Church.

When did I pass my opinion off as the Church's?  Unless I state "Orthodoxy teaches..." or "The Orthodox believe..." why should someone assume I am speaking other than as a private individual?
Someone asked if it's possible to kill in war and still be Orthodox. You said, "Absolutely," and went on to defend this assertion with your interpretation of Scripture. When I challenged you on that, you pointed out the many Orthodox warrior-saints as evidence of the "Orthodoxy" of your position. For one, I read the question as requesting a definitive Orthodox response. And for two, you said nothing in your response to indicate that you were giving anything different and made a clear attempt to defend the "Orthodoxy" of your point of view when questioned. Therefore, the clear implication is that you were passing off your personal interpretation of Scripture and your own logic as representative of the Orthodox Tradition.

I also think that your earlier aggressive pontification on this thread bears that out even more.

As I said, unless I state "Orthodoxy teaches..." or "The Orthodox believe..." one should not assume I am speaking as anything other than a private individual.  The fact that you assume people intend to speak firstly for the Church and only secondarily for themselves is your problem, not mine.
You don't think you could learn how to communicate better so people can understand you correctly?

Why assume the communication problem is with the other person?
Title: Re: Orthodox view of the Armed Forces
Post by: JamesRottnek on April 18, 2012, 01:28:52 AM
God directly ordered the Israelites to commit genocide.

OT tribal war stories are good things to base our Christian morality on, huh?

They are bad things to ignore.
Title: Re: Orthodox view of the Armed Forces
Post by: PeterTheAleut on April 18, 2012, 01:37:33 AM
You're right Peter; I should do the Orthodox thing and chuck my reason at the door.  The mind was given by God for the sole purpose of searching the writings of the Saints.
You do realize I never counseled you to do that? What I DID ask you to do is to stop parading your own reasoning around as though it were the Orthodox teaching on the subject, especially considering that, IIRC, you're still a catechumen or newbie Orthodox who should be investing more energy into learning what the faith teaches rather than arguing as if you already know everything. Take ownership of your reasoning and call it what it is: your own opinions.

I suppose someone should have told St. Ambrose to shut up, then, when he went to the church, where the election to replace Auxentius, Bishop of Milan, was telling place, to prevent an uproar.  It was during that speech that the unbaptized Ambrose was elected bishop.  I suppose the people were wrong to call for his ordination, seeing as how he was but still unbaptized; and I suppose the friend who's house he was hiding in after this election was wrong to have given him up, seeing as how he was but still unbaptized; and I suppose those bishops who ordained him to the episcopate were wrong to have done so when it was just a week prior that he had been yet unbaptized.
Did St. Ambrose appoint himself bishop?

Is this really a germane question?  
Yes, it is. You cited the example of St. Ambrose's election to the episcopacy as precedent to justify your self-appointed authority on this thread, so yes, my question is germane to our debate. Only if St. Ambrose appointed himself bishop is his example analogous to your defense of your authority to teach the Orthodox faith even though you're not yet Orthodox.

No, I cited St. Ambrose going to a church to give a speech during the election of the replacement for the bishop of Milan, as similar to this.  No one appointed St. Ambrose to go give a speech.
But, as governor of the province of Milan, public speeches were part of his job description. Whereas it may indeed be true that St. Ambrose appointed himself to give a speech at the assembly that eventually elected him bishop, it is also true that he most likely gave the speech because he felt that his role as provincial governor placed on him the demand that he do so. Are you a civic authority as St. Ambrose was when he gave his speech? Does your role on this forum demand that you pontificate?

So the Premier of China has a right to give speeches in Orthodox contexts, but I should refrain from giving an opinion?
No, I never said you should refrain from giving your opinion. Feel free to share your opinions as much as you want, but make sure you identify those opinions you share as nothing more than your personal opinions. The only thing I ask you to stop doing is passing your personal opinions off as the teachings of the Church.

When did I pass my opinion off as the Church's?  Unless I state "Orthodoxy teaches..." or "The Orthodox believe..." why should someone assume I am speaking other than as a private individual?
Someone asked if it's possible to kill in war and still be Orthodox. You said, "Absolutely," and went on to defend this assertion with your interpretation of Scripture. When I challenged you on that, you pointed out the many Orthodox warrior-saints as evidence of the "Orthodoxy" of your position. For one, I read the question as requesting a definitive Orthodox response. And for two, you said nothing in your response to indicate that you were giving anything different and made a clear attempt to defend the "Orthodoxy" of your point of view when questioned. Therefore, the clear implication is that you were passing off your personal interpretation of Scripture and your own logic as representative of the Orthodox Tradition.

I also think that your earlier aggressive pontification on this thread bears that out even more.

As I said, unless I state "Orthodoxy teaches..." or "The Orthodox believe..." one should not assume I am speaking as anything other than a private individual.  The fact that you assume people intend to speak firstly for the Church and only secondarily for themselves is your problem, not mine.
You don't think you could learn how to communicate better so people can understand you correctly?

Why assume the communication problem is with the other person?
You assumed the communication problem was with me, so why don't you ask yourself that question?

The simple fact is this: In any medium of communication, especially in this text-only medium we call the Internet, what you don't state explicitly, you leave open to interpretation. And what you leave open to interpretation, you leave open to being misconstrued. Therefore, if you want others to believe correctly that you're merely speaking your opinion, you really have to state that explicitly. It's not safe to assume that it's obvious and that those who don't see it are somehow blinded by their own assumptions.
Title: Re: Orthodox view of the Armed Forces
Post by: JamesRottnek on April 18, 2012, 01:50:26 AM
You're right Peter; I should do the Orthodox thing and chuck my reason at the door.  The mind was given by God for the sole purpose of searching the writings of the Saints.
You do realize I never counseled you to do that? What I DID ask you to do is to stop parading your own reasoning around as though it were the Orthodox teaching on the subject, especially considering that, IIRC, you're still a catechumen or newbie Orthodox who should be investing more energy into learning what the faith teaches rather than arguing as if you already know everything. Take ownership of your reasoning and call it what it is: your own opinions.

I suppose someone should have told St. Ambrose to shut up, then, when he went to the church, where the election to replace Auxentius, Bishop of Milan, was telling place, to prevent an uproar.  It was during that speech that the unbaptized Ambrose was elected bishop.  I suppose the people were wrong to call for his ordination, seeing as how he was but still unbaptized; and I suppose the friend who's house he was hiding in after this election was wrong to have given him up, seeing as how he was but still unbaptized; and I suppose those bishops who ordained him to the episcopate were wrong to have done so when it was just a week prior that he had been yet unbaptized.
Did St. Ambrose appoint himself bishop?

Is this really a germane question?  
Yes, it is. You cited the example of St. Ambrose's election to the episcopacy as precedent to justify your self-appointed authority on this thread, so yes, my question is germane to our debate. Only if St. Ambrose appointed himself bishop is his example analogous to your defense of your authority to teach the Orthodox faith even though you're not yet Orthodox.

No, I cited St. Ambrose going to a church to give a speech during the election of the replacement for the bishop of Milan, as similar to this.  No one appointed St. Ambrose to go give a speech.
But, as governor of the province of Milan, public speeches were part of his job description. Whereas it may indeed be true that St. Ambrose appointed himself to give a speech at the assembly that eventually elected him bishop, it is also true that he most likely gave the speech because he felt that his role as provincial governor placed on him the demand that he do so. Are you a civic authority as St. Ambrose was when he gave his speech? Does your role on this forum demand that you pontificate?

So the Premier of China has a right to give speeches in Orthodox contexts, but I should refrain from giving an opinion?
No, I never said you should refrain from giving your opinion. Feel free to share your opinions as much as you want, but make sure you identify those opinions you share as nothing more than your personal opinions. The only thing I ask you to stop doing is passing your personal opinions off as the teachings of the Church.

When did I pass my opinion off as the Church's?  Unless I state "Orthodoxy teaches..." or "The Orthodox believe..." why should someone assume I am speaking other than as a private individual?
Someone asked if it's possible to kill in war and still be Orthodox. You said, "Absolutely," and went on to defend this assertion with your interpretation of Scripture. When I challenged you on that, you pointed out the many Orthodox warrior-saints as evidence of the "Orthodoxy" of your position. For one, I read the question as requesting a definitive Orthodox response. And for two, you said nothing in your response to indicate that you were giving anything different and made a clear attempt to defend the "Orthodoxy" of your point of view when questioned. Therefore, the clear implication is that you were passing off your personal interpretation of Scripture and your own logic as representative of the Orthodox Tradition.

I also think that your earlier aggressive pontification on this thread bears that out even more.

As I said, unless I state "Orthodoxy teaches..." or "The Orthodox believe..." one should not assume I am speaking as anything other than a private individual.  The fact that you assume people intend to speak firstly for the Church and only secondarily for themselves is your problem, not mine.
You don't think you could learn how to communicate better so people can understand you correctly?

Why assume the communication problem is with the other person?
You assumed the communication problem was with me, so why don't you ask yourself that question?

The simple fact is this: In any medium of communication, especially in this text-only medium we call the Internet, what you don't state explicitly, you leave open to interpretation. And what you leave open to interpretation, you leave open to being misconstrued. Therefore, if you want others to believe correctly that you're merely speaking your opinion, you really have to state that explicitly. It's not safe to assume that it's obvious and that those who don't see it are somehow blinded by their own assumptions.

I could just as easily say that people will normally assume I'm writing only my opinion, unless explicitly stated otherwise.
Title: Re: Orthodox view of the Armed Forces
Post by: PeterTheAleut on April 18, 2012, 02:00:51 AM
You're right Peter; I should do the Orthodox thing and chuck my reason at the door.  The mind was given by God for the sole purpose of searching the writings of the Saints.
You do realize I never counseled you to do that? What I DID ask you to do is to stop parading your own reasoning around as though it were the Orthodox teaching on the subject, especially considering that, IIRC, you're still a catechumen or newbie Orthodox who should be investing more energy into learning what the faith teaches rather than arguing as if you already know everything. Take ownership of your reasoning and call it what it is: your own opinions.

I suppose someone should have told St. Ambrose to shut up, then, when he went to the church, where the election to replace Auxentius, Bishop of Milan, was telling place, to prevent an uproar.  It was during that speech that the unbaptized Ambrose was elected bishop.  I suppose the people were wrong to call for his ordination, seeing as how he was but still unbaptized; and I suppose the friend who's house he was hiding in after this election was wrong to have given him up, seeing as how he was but still unbaptized; and I suppose those bishops who ordained him to the episcopate were wrong to have done so when it was just a week prior that he had been yet unbaptized.
Did St. Ambrose appoint himself bishop?

Is this really a germane question?  
Yes, it is. You cited the example of St. Ambrose's election to the episcopacy as precedent to justify your self-appointed authority on this thread, so yes, my question is germane to our debate. Only if St. Ambrose appointed himself bishop is his example analogous to your defense of your authority to teach the Orthodox faith even though you're not yet Orthodox.

No, I cited St. Ambrose going to a church to give a speech during the election of the replacement for the bishop of Milan, as similar to this.  No one appointed St. Ambrose to go give a speech.
But, as governor of the province of Milan, public speeches were part of his job description. Whereas it may indeed be true that St. Ambrose appointed himself to give a speech at the assembly that eventually elected him bishop, it is also true that he most likely gave the speech because he felt that his role as provincial governor placed on him the demand that he do so. Are you a civic authority as St. Ambrose was when he gave his speech? Does your role on this forum demand that you pontificate?

So the Premier of China has a right to give speeches in Orthodox contexts, but I should refrain from giving an opinion?
No, I never said you should refrain from giving your opinion. Feel free to share your opinions as much as you want, but make sure you identify those opinions you share as nothing more than your personal opinions. The only thing I ask you to stop doing is passing your personal opinions off as the teachings of the Church.

When did I pass my opinion off as the Church's?  Unless I state "Orthodoxy teaches..." or "The Orthodox believe..." why should someone assume I am speaking other than as a private individual?
Someone asked if it's possible to kill in war and still be Orthodox. You said, "Absolutely," and went on to defend this assertion with your interpretation of Scripture. When I challenged you on that, you pointed out the many Orthodox warrior-saints as evidence of the "Orthodoxy" of your position. For one, I read the question as requesting a definitive Orthodox response. And for two, you said nothing in your response to indicate that you were giving anything different and made a clear attempt to defend the "Orthodoxy" of your point of view when questioned. Therefore, the clear implication is that you were passing off your personal interpretation of Scripture and your own logic as representative of the Orthodox Tradition.

I also think that your earlier aggressive pontification on this thread bears that out even more.

As I said, unless I state "Orthodoxy teaches..." or "The Orthodox believe..." one should not assume I am speaking as anything other than a private individual.  The fact that you assume people intend to speak firstly for the Church and only secondarily for themselves is your problem, not mine.
You don't think you could learn how to communicate better so people can understand you correctly?

Why assume the communication problem is with the other person?
You assumed the communication problem was with me, so why don't you ask yourself that question?

The simple fact is this: In any medium of communication, especially in this text-only medium we call the Internet, what you don't state explicitly, you leave open to interpretation. And what you leave open to interpretation, you leave open to being misconstrued. Therefore, if you want others to believe correctly that you're merely speaking your opinion, you really have to state that explicitly. It's not safe to assume that it's obvious and that those who don't see it are somehow blinded by their own assumptions.

I could just as easily say that people will normally assume I'm writing only my opinion, unless explicitly stated otherwise.
I suppose you can just as easily say anything you want, but the biggest determining factor, which I failed to mention earlier, is context. Context, more than anything else, will determine how your post is read. If the context of your post implies that you're attempting to represent a definitive authority, then you need to state explicitly that you're merely sharing your opinion. If the context of your post implies that you're merely sharing your opinion, then you need to state explicitly that you're representing a definitive authority. Considering this, a person really needs to be sensitive to how the context of his post will determine how others understand it. It's not safe to assUme anything.
Title: Re: Orthodox view of the Armed Forces
Post by: Melodist on April 18, 2012, 02:49:00 PM
Are there any official teachings about this? I ask because I'm considering serving a contract in the Navy to help pay for college.

In addition to our tradition of military saints including the likes of Ss George (http://ocafs.oca.org/FeastSaintsViewer.asp?SID=4&ID=1&FSID=101184), Demetrios (http://ocafs.oca.org/FeastSaintsViewer.asp?SID=4&ID=1&FSID=83), Theodore (http://ocafs.oca.org/FeastSaintsViewer.asp?SID=4&ID=1&FSID=9), Maurice (http://ocafs.oca.org/FeastSaintsViewer.asp?SID=4&ID=1&FSID=100580), Martin (http://ocafs.oca.org/FeastSaintsViewer.asp?SID=4&ID=1&FSID=103285) (who actually left the military to better serve Christ but we get the word "chaplain" from the priest who would the relic of his cape into battle), the fact that we have Orthodox chaplains (see the link I posted earlier for an example of one), and the prayers (http://www.saintgregoryoutreach.org/2012/02/orthodox-prayer-military-protection-war.html) and blessings (http://ancientfaith.com/podcasts/valleyoftheshadow/full_hearts) that we have for Orthodox Christians in military service, I found a couple of passages in a couple Orthodox catechisms that may be of some use.

Quote from: http://www.pravoslavieto.com/docs/eng/Orthodox_Catechism_of_Philaret.htm#ii.xv.iii.i.p41
574. What is forbidden by the sixth commandment?

Murder; that is, taking away the life of our neighbor in any manner whatever.

575. Is it in all cases murder, and against this commandment, to kill?

No. It is not murder, nor against this commandment, when life is taken in the execution of duty; as, when a criminal is punished with death, by just judgment; nor, again, when an enemy is killed in war, in defense of our sovereign and country.

Quote from: http://www.fatheralexander.org/booklets/english/law_of_god.htm#n24
One of the clearest and most self-denying struggles of service to one's homeland is to die for the nation. A Christian soldier is a defender of the homeland, and clearly fulfils Christ's precept, "there is no greater love than to lay down one's life for ones brethren."

War in itself is absolutely evil, an extremely sad phenomenon and deeply contrary to the very essence of Christianity. Words cannot express how joyous it would be if people ceased to war with one another and peace reigned on earth. Sad reality speaks quite otherwise, however. Only some dreamers far removed from reality and some narrowly one-sided sectarians can pretend that war can be omitted from real life.

It is quite correct to point out that war is a violation of the commandment, "Do not kill." No one will argue against that. Still, we see from the Holy Scripture that in that very same Old Testament time when this commandment was given, the Israelite people fought on command from God, and defeated its enemies with God's help. Consequently, the meaning of the commandment, "Do not kill," does not refer unconditionally to every act of removing a person's life. This commandment forbids killing for revenge, in anger, by personal decision or act of will. When our Savior explained the deep meaning of this commandment, He pointed out that it forbids not only actual killing, but also an un-Christian, vain anger.

Nevertheless, in a conversation with the apostles about the last days, the Lord told them, "You will hear of wars and reports of wars. See that you are not distressed: for all this must be." With these words, the Lord refutes all statements that war is avoidable.

True, we have already examined the fact that war is a negative phenomenon. Yet, it will exist, sometimes as the sole defense of truth and human rights, or against seizure, brutal invasion and violence. Only such wars of defense are recognized in Christian teaching. In fact, we hear of the following event in the life of St. Athanasios of the Holy Mountain.

Prince Tornikian of Georgia, an eminent commander of the Byzantine armies, was received into monasticism at St Athanasios' monastery. During the time of the Persian invasion, Empress Zoe recalled Tornikian to command the armies. Tornikian flatly refused on the grounds that he was a monk. But St. Athanasios said to him, "We are all children of our homeland and we are obligated to defend it. Our obligation is to guard the homeland from enemies by prayers. Nevertheless, if God deems it expedient to use both our hands and our heart for the common weal, we must submit completely ... If you do not obey the ruler, you will have to answer for the blood of your compatriots whom you did not wish to save." Tornikian submitted, defeated the enemy and rescued the homeland from danger.

In a conversation with Mohammedans, about war, St. Cyril the Enlightener of the Slavs said, "We meekly endure personal offenses; but as a society, we defend each other, laying down our lives for our neighbors..."

One can, of course, sin and sin greatly while participating in war. This happens when one participates in war with a feeling of personal hatred, vengeance, or vainglory and with proud personal aims. On the contrary, the less the soldier thinks about himself, and the more he is ready to lay down his life for others, the closer he approaches to the martyr's crown.

And also this commentary (http://ancientfaith.com/podcasts/coffeecup/luke_3101) on Luke 3:14 might be useful starting around 12:08.
And the soldiers likewise demanded of him, saying, And what shall we do? And he said unto them, Do violence to no man, neither accuse any falsely; and be content with your wages.

1. ignore all the drivel on this thread
Title: Re: Orthodox view of the Armed Forces
Post by: dcommini on April 18, 2012, 02:58:33 PM
Are there any official teachings about this? I ask because I'm considering serving a contract in the Navy to help pay for college.

In addition to our tradition of military saints including the likes of Ss George (http://ocafs.oca.org/FeastSaintsViewer.asp?SID=4&ID=1&FSID=101184), Demetrios (http://ocafs.oca.org/FeastSaintsViewer.asp?SID=4&ID=1&FSID=83), Theodore (http://ocafs.oca.org/FeastSaintsViewer.asp?SID=4&ID=1&FSID=9), Maurice (http://ocafs.oca.org/FeastSaintsViewer.asp?SID=4&ID=1&FSID=100580), Martin (http://ocafs.oca.org/FeastSaintsViewer.asp?SID=4&ID=1&FSID=103285) (who actually left the military to better serve Christ but we get the word "chaplain" from the priest who would the relic of his cape into battle), the fact that we have Orthodox chaplains (see the link I posted earlier for an example of one), and the prayers (http://www.saintgregoryoutreach.org/2012/02/orthodox-prayer-military-protection-war.html) and blessings (http://ancientfaith.com/podcasts/valleyoftheshadow/full_hearts) that we have for Orthodox Christians in military service, I found a couple of passages in a couple Orthodox catechisms that may be of some use.

Quote from: http://www.pravoslavieto.com/docs/eng/Orthodox_Catechism_of_Philaret.htm#ii.xv.iii.i.p41
574. What is forbidden by the sixth commandment?

Murder; that is, taking away the life of our neighbor in any manner whatever.

575. Is it in all cases murder, and against this commandment, to kill?

No. It is not murder, nor against this commandment, when life is taken in the execution of duty; as, when a criminal is punished with death, by just judgment; nor, again, when an enemy is killed in war, in defense of our sovereign and country.

Quote from: http://www.fatheralexander.org/booklets/english/law_of_god.htm#n24
One of the clearest and most self-denying struggles of service to one's homeland is to die for the nation. A Christian soldier is a defender of the homeland, and clearly fulfils Christ's precept, "there is no greater love than to lay down one's life for ones brethren."

War in itself is absolutely evil, an extremely sad phenomenon and deeply contrary to the very essence of Christianity. Words cannot express how joyous it would be if people ceased to war with one another and peace reigned on earth. Sad reality speaks quite otherwise, however. Only some dreamers far removed from reality and some narrowly one-sided sectarians can pretend that war can be omitted from real life.

It is quite correct to point out that war is a violation of the commandment, "Do not kill." No one will argue against that. Still, we see from the Holy Scripture that in that very same Old Testament time when this commandment was given, the Israelite people fought on command from God, and defeated its enemies with God's help. Consequently, the meaning of the commandment, "Do not kill," does not refer unconditionally to every act of removing a person's life. This commandment forbids killing for revenge, in anger, by personal decision or act of will. When our Savior explained the deep meaning of this commandment, He pointed out that it forbids not only actual killing, but also an un-Christian, vain anger.

Nevertheless, in a conversation with the apostles about the last days, the Lord told them, "You will hear of wars and reports of wars. See that you are not distressed: for all this must be." With these words, the Lord refutes all statements that war is avoidable.

True, we have already examined the fact that war is a negative phenomenon. Yet, it will exist, sometimes as the sole defense of truth and human rights, or against seizure, brutal invasion and violence. Only such wars of defense are recognized in Christian teaching. In fact, we hear of the following event in the life of St. Athanasios of the Holy Mountain.

Prince Tornikian of Georgia, an eminent commander of the Byzantine armies, was received into monasticism at St Athanasios' monastery. During the time of the Persian invasion, Empress Zoe recalled Tornikian to command the armies. Tornikian flatly refused on the grounds that he was a monk. But St. Athanasios said to him, "We are all children of our homeland and we are obligated to defend it. Our obligation is to guard the homeland from enemies by prayers. Nevertheless, if God deems it expedient to use both our hands and our heart for the common weal, we must submit completely ... If you do not obey the ruler, you will have to answer for the blood of your compatriots whom you did not wish to save." Tornikian submitted, defeated the enemy and rescued the homeland from danger.

In a conversation with Mohammedans, about war, St. Cyril the Enlightener of the Slavs said, "We meekly endure personal offenses; but as a society, we defend each other, laying down our lives for our neighbors..."

One can, of course, sin and sin greatly while participating in war. This happens when one participates in war with a feeling of personal hatred, vengeance, or vainglory and with proud personal aims. On the contrary, the less the soldier thinks about himself, and the more he is ready to lay down his life for others, the closer he approaches to the martyr's crown.

And also this commentary (http://ancientfaith.com/podcasts/coffeecup/luke_3101) on Luke 3:14 might be useful starting around 12:08.
And the soldiers likewise demanded of him, saying, And what shall we do? And he said unto them, Do violence to no man, neither accuse any falsely; and be content with your wages.

1. ignore all the drivel on this thread

Thank you, that is some nice info, especially for those of us who are still serving overseas.

And to JamesR, the Navy? Really? Why would anybody want to be stuffed in a nuclear powered tin can for months at a time? Join the Army instead!  :P
Title: Re: Orthodox view of the Armed Forces
Post by: Melodist on April 18, 2012, 03:03:58 PM
And to JamesR, the Navy? Really? Why would anybody want to be stuffed in a nuclear powered tin can for months at a time? Join the Army instead!  :P

About 7:35 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YrS3Q9D98F0)
Title: Re: Orthodox view of the Armed Forces
Post by: dcommini on April 18, 2012, 03:09:15 PM
And to JamesR, the Navy? Really? Why would anybody want to be stuffed in a nuclear powered tin can for months at a time? Join the Army instead!  :P

About 7:35 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YrS3Q9D98F0)

It wont load on my sub-par internet, but I think I remember seeing the clip before...
Title: Re: Orthodox view of the Armed Forces
Post by: Carl Kraeff (Second Chance) on April 18, 2012, 03:51:08 PM
And to JamesR, the Navy? Really? Why would anybody want to be stuffed in a nuclear powered tin can for months at a time? Join the Army instead!  :P

About 7:35 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YrS3Q9D98F0)

I am surprised folks do not know difference between the US Marines and the Army.
Title: Re: Orthodox view of the Armed Forces
Post by: dcommini on April 18, 2012, 03:53:41 PM
And to JamesR, the Navy? Really? Why would anybody want to be stuffed in a nuclear powered tin can for months at a time? Join the Army instead!  :P

About 7:35 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YrS3Q9D98F0)

I am surprised folks do not know difference between the US Marines and the Army.

it happens. i get it all the time when i'm wearing the Army Blues. I was even mistaken for being Air Force once when wearing my greens!
Title: Re: Orthodox view of the Armed Forces
Post by: JamesR on April 18, 2012, 03:57:31 PM
And to JamesR, the Navy? Really? Why would anybody want to be stuffed in a nuclear powered tin can for months at a time? Join the Army instead!  :P

More of an exploration guy; the seas have a special draw on me and the thought of maybe someday getting to fire anti-air guns and bombs at other ships and planes like in World War II still seduces me. I'm hoping that sometime in the near future, the Navy will see some frontline action again like in World War II instead of just being transport now.
Title: Re: Orthodox view of the Armed Forces
Post by: Melodist on April 18, 2012, 04:28:08 PM
And to JamesR, the Navy? Really? Why would anybody want to be stuffed in a nuclear powered tin can for months at a time? Join the Army instead!  :P
About 7:35 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YrS3Q9D98F0)
I am surprised folks do not know difference between the US Marines and the Army.

If you think I don't know the difference, then you missed the point of my post.
Title: Re: Orthodox view of the Armed Forces
Post by: Shanghaiski on April 18, 2012, 04:34:58 PM
Are there any official teachings about this? I ask because I'm considering serving a contract in the Navy to help pay for college.

St. John the Baptist has advice to soldiers in the Gospels--something about not extorting things from people and being content with their wages.

I don't see how anyone could think Orthodoxy is against the armed forces. To protect life life is honorable, and to lay down one's life for one's friends is the highest form of love, as our Lord says. There are a great many Orthodox soldiers today and in the past. Many, like Elder Paisios, found military service even in times of war to be spiritually beneficial for themselves in that they had the opportunity to exercise self-sacrifice and be an example of goodness to their fellow soldiers. I'm really not sure why this thread is so long.
Title: Re: Orthodox view of the Armed Forces
Post by: William on April 18, 2012, 04:36:01 PM
Are there any official teachings about this? I ask because I'm considering serving a contract in the Navy to help pay for college.

In addition to our tradition of military saints including the likes of Ss George (http://ocafs.oca.org/FeastSaintsViewer.asp?SID=4&ID=1&FSID=101184), Demetrios (http://ocafs.oca.org/FeastSaintsViewer.asp?SID=4&ID=1&FSID=83), Theodore (http://ocafs.oca.org/FeastSaintsViewer.asp?SID=4&ID=1&FSID=9), Maurice (http://ocafs.oca.org/FeastSaintsViewer.asp?SID=4&ID=1&FSID=100580), Martin (http://ocafs.oca.org/FeastSaintsViewer.asp?SID=4&ID=1&FSID=103285) (who actually left the military to better serve Christ but we get the word "chaplain" from the priest who would the relic of his cape into battle), the fact that we have Orthodox chaplains (see the link I posted earlier for an example of one), and the prayers (http://www.saintgregoryoutreach.org/2012/02/orthodox-prayer-military-protection-war.html) and blessings (http://ancientfaith.com/podcasts/valleyoftheshadow/full_hearts) that we have for Orthodox Christians in military service, I found a couple of passages in a couple Orthodox catechisms that may be of some use.

Quote from: http://www.pravoslavieto.com/docs/eng/Orthodox_Catechism_of_Philaret.htm#ii.xv.iii.i.p41
574. What is forbidden by the sixth commandment?

Murder; that is, taking away the life of our neighbor in any manner whatever.

575. Is it in all cases murder, and against this commandment, to kill?

No. It is not murder, nor against this commandment, when life is taken in the execution of duty; as, when a criminal is punished with death, by just judgment; nor, again, when an enemy is killed in war, in defense of our sovereign and country.

Quote from: http://www.fatheralexander.org/booklets/english/law_of_god.htm#n24
One of the clearest and most self-denying struggles of service to one's homeland is to die for the nation. A Christian soldier is a defender of the homeland, and clearly fulfils Christ's precept, "there is no greater love than to lay down one's life for ones brethren."

War in itself is absolutely evil, an extremely sad phenomenon and deeply contrary to the very essence of Christianity. Words cannot express how joyous it would be if people ceased to war with one another and peace reigned on earth. Sad reality speaks quite otherwise, however. Only some dreamers far removed from reality and some narrowly one-sided sectarians can pretend that war can be omitted from real life.

It is quite correct to point out that war is a violation of the commandment, "Do not kill." No one will argue against that. Still, we see from the Holy Scripture that in that very same Old Testament time when this commandment was given, the Israelite people fought on command from God, and defeated its enemies with God's help. Consequently, the meaning of the commandment, "Do not kill," does not refer unconditionally to every act of removing a person's life. This commandment forbids killing for revenge, in anger, by personal decision or act of will. When our Savior explained the deep meaning of this commandment, He pointed out that it forbids not only actual killing, but also an un-Christian, vain anger.

Nevertheless, in a conversation with the apostles about the last days, the Lord told them, "You will hear of wars and reports of wars. See that you are not distressed: for all this must be." With these words, the Lord refutes all statements that war is avoidable.

True, we have already examined the fact that war is a negative phenomenon. Yet, it will exist, sometimes as the sole defense of truth and human rights, or against seizure, brutal invasion and violence. Only such wars of defense are recognized in Christian teaching. In fact, we hear of the following event in the life of St. Athanasios of the Holy Mountain.

Prince Tornikian of Georgia, an eminent commander of the Byzantine armies, was received into monasticism at St Athanasios' monastery. During the time of the Persian invasion, Empress Zoe recalled Tornikian to command the armies. Tornikian flatly refused on the grounds that he was a monk. But St. Athanasios said to him, "We are all children of our homeland and we are obligated to defend it. Our obligation is to guard the homeland from enemies by prayers. Nevertheless, if God deems it expedient to use both our hands and our heart for the common weal, we must submit completely ... If you do not obey the ruler, you will have to answer for the blood of your compatriots whom you did not wish to save." Tornikian submitted, defeated the enemy and rescued the homeland from danger.

In a conversation with Mohammedans, about war, St. Cyril the Enlightener of the Slavs said, "We meekly endure personal offenses; but as a society, we defend each other, laying down our lives for our neighbors..."

One can, of course, sin and sin greatly while participating in war. This happens when one participates in war with a feeling of personal hatred, vengeance, or vainglory and with proud personal aims. On the contrary, the less the soldier thinks about himself, and the more he is ready to lay down his life for others, the closer he approaches to the martyr's crown.

And also this commentary (http://ancientfaith.com/podcasts/coffeecup/luke_3101) on Luke 3:14 might be useful starting around 12:08.
And the soldiers likewise demanded of him, saying, And what shall we do? And he said unto them, Do violence to no man, neither accuse any falsely; and be content with your wages.

1. ignore all the drivel on this thread

Thanks for this post. Fr. David's podcast on AFR is very interesting, although unfortunately I only was able to read the two transcripts (I can't listen to podcasts, if I try to multitask I don't absorb anything and if I do nothing else I feel way too unproductive).
Title: Re: Orthodox view of the Armed Forces
Post by: Shanghaiski on April 18, 2012, 04:37:43 PM
Are there any official teachings about this? I ask because I'm considering serving a contract in the Navy to help pay for college.

In addition to our tradition of military saints including the likes of Ss George (http://ocafs.oca.org/FeastSaintsViewer.asp?SID=4&ID=1&FSID=101184), Demetrios (http://ocafs.oca.org/FeastSaintsViewer.asp?SID=4&ID=1&FSID=83), Theodore (http://ocafs.oca.org/FeastSaintsViewer.asp?SID=4&ID=1&FSID=9), Maurice (http://ocafs.oca.org/FeastSaintsViewer.asp?SID=4&ID=1&FSID=100580), Martin (http://ocafs.oca.org/FeastSaintsViewer.asp?SID=4&ID=1&FSID=103285) (who actually left the military to better serve Christ but we get the word "chaplain" from the priest who would the relic of his cape into battle), the fact that we have Orthodox chaplains (see the link I posted earlier for an example of one), and the prayers (http://www.saintgregoryoutreach.org/2012/02/orthodox-prayer-military-protection-war.html) and blessings (http://ancientfaith.com/podcasts/valleyoftheshadow/full_hearts) that we have for Orthodox Christians in military service, I found a couple of passages in a couple Orthodox catechisms that may be of some use.

Quote from: http://www.pravoslavieto.com/docs/eng/Orthodox_Catechism_of_Philaret.htm#ii.xv.iii.i.p41
574. What is forbidden by the sixth commandment?

Murder; that is, taking away the life of our neighbor in any manner whatever.

575. Is it in all cases murder, and against this commandment, to kill?

No. It is not murder, nor against this commandment, when life is taken in the execution of duty; as, when a criminal is punished with death, by just judgment; nor, again, when an enemy is killed in war, in defense of our sovereign and country.

Quote from: http://www.fatheralexander.org/booklets/english/law_of_god.htm#n24
One of the clearest and most self-denying struggles of service to one's homeland is to die for the nation. A Christian soldier is a defender of the homeland, and clearly fulfils Christ's precept, "there is no greater love than to lay down one's life for ones brethren."

War in itself is absolutely evil, an extremely sad phenomenon and deeply contrary to the very essence of Christianity. Words cannot express how joyous it would be if people ceased to war with one another and peace reigned on earth. Sad reality speaks quite otherwise, however. Only some dreamers far removed from reality and some narrowly one-sided sectarians can pretend that war can be omitted from real life.

It is quite correct to point out that war is a violation of the commandment, "Do not kill." No one will argue against that. Still, we see from the Holy Scripture that in that very same Old Testament time when this commandment was given, the Israelite people fought on command from God, and defeated its enemies with God's help. Consequently, the meaning of the commandment, "Do not kill," does not refer unconditionally to every act of removing a person's life. This commandment forbids killing for revenge, in anger, by personal decision or act of will. When our Savior explained the deep meaning of this commandment, He pointed out that it forbids not only actual killing, but also an un-Christian, vain anger.

Nevertheless, in a conversation with the apostles about the last days, the Lord told them, "You will hear of wars and reports of wars. See that you are not distressed: for all this must be." With these words, the Lord refutes all statements that war is avoidable.

True, we have already examined the fact that war is a negative phenomenon. Yet, it will exist, sometimes as the sole defense of truth and human rights, or against seizure, brutal invasion and violence. Only such wars of defense are recognized in Christian teaching. In fact, we hear of the following event in the life of St. Athanasios of the Holy Mountain.

Prince Tornikian of Georgia, an eminent commander of the Byzantine armies, was received into monasticism at St Athanasios' monastery. During the time of the Persian invasion, Empress Zoe recalled Tornikian to command the armies. Tornikian flatly refused on the grounds that he was a monk. But St. Athanasios said to him, "We are all children of our homeland and we are obligated to defend it. Our obligation is to guard the homeland from enemies by prayers. Nevertheless, if God deems it expedient to use both our hands and our heart for the common weal, we must submit completely ... If you do not obey the ruler, you will have to answer for the blood of your compatriots whom you did not wish to save." Tornikian submitted, defeated the enemy and rescued the homeland from danger.

In a conversation with Mohammedans, about war, St. Cyril the Enlightener of the Slavs said, "We meekly endure personal offenses; but as a society, we defend each other, laying down our lives for our neighbors..."

One can, of course, sin and sin greatly while participating in war. This happens when one participates in war with a feeling of personal hatred, vengeance, or vainglory and with proud personal aims. On the contrary, the less the soldier thinks about himself, and the more he is ready to lay down his life for others, the closer he approaches to the martyr's crown.

And also this commentary (http://ancientfaith.com/podcasts/coffeecup/luke_3101) on Luke 3:14 might be useful starting around 12:08.
And the soldiers likewise demanded of him, saying, And what shall we do? And he said unto them, Do violence to no man, neither accuse any falsely; and be content with your wages.

1. ignore all the drivel on this thread

St. Demetrius did not leave the army. I don't think St. George did either. Or St. Maurice for that matter. They left the emperor's army when they were martyred. (Wait, maybe the parenthetical reference was just for St. Martin. Okay.)
Title: Re: Orthodox view of the Armed Forces
Post by: Carl Kraeff (Second Chance) on April 18, 2012, 04:50:02 PM
And to JamesR, the Navy? Really? Why would anybody want to be stuffed in a nuclear powered tin can for months at a time? Join the Army instead!  :P
About 7:35 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YrS3Q9D98F0)
I am surprised folks do not know difference between the US Marines and the Army.

If you think I don't know the difference, then you missed the point of my post.

I apologize; I see it now that you have pointed out the real point of the cartoon.
Title: Re: Orthodox view of the Armed Forces
Post by: Melodist on April 18, 2012, 05:12:08 PM
In addition to our tradition of military saints including the likes of Ss George (http://ocafs.oca.org/FeastSaintsViewer.asp?SID=4&ID=1&FSID=101184), Demetrios (http://ocafs.oca.org/FeastSaintsViewer.asp?SID=4&ID=1&FSID=83), Theodore (http://ocafs.oca.org/FeastSaintsViewer.asp?SID=4&ID=1&FSID=9), Maurice (http://ocafs.oca.org/FeastSaintsViewer.asp?SID=4&ID=1&FSID=100580), Martin (http://ocafs.oca.org/FeastSaintsViewer.asp?SID=4&ID=1&FSID=103285) (who actually left the military to better serve Christ but we get the word "chaplain" from the priest who would the relic of his cape into battle), the fact that we have Orthodox chaplains (see the link I posted earlier for an example of one), and the prayers (http://www.saintgregoryoutreach.org/2012/02/orthodox-prayer-military-protection-war.html) and blessings (http://ancientfaith.com/podcasts/valleyoftheshadow/full_hearts) that we have for Orthodox Christians in military service, I found a couple of passages in a couple Orthodox catechisms that may be of some use.
St. Demetrius did not leave the army. I don't think St. George did either. Or St. Maurice for that matter. They left the emperor's army when they were martyred. (Wait, maybe the parenthetical reference was just for St. Martin. Okay.)

It was.
Title: Re: Orthodox view of the Armed Forces
Post by: TheMathematician on April 18, 2012, 10:27:22 PM
here folks, you all can take these, we have enough for all of you :P

(http://a8.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-prn1/542986_398689170152464_342503639104351_1343062_1150331414_n.jpg)
Title: Re: Orthodox view of the Armed Forces
Post by: Aindriú on April 18, 2012, 11:06:53 PM
lol