Monks/Monastics vs Military Might: Is Self-Defense against Perversion Right?

[Gxg (G²)]

OK, I thought a little deeper. I'm on my phone so I can't be as verbose as I'd like; I hope I can distill my thoughts well enough here.

Cullen is portrayed as a good man driven to bad things by the murder of his family. He freed his slaves grudgingly to please his wife and only realized AFTER the war that she was right. His fighting for the Confederacy wasn't hypocritical. The fact that he was a good man, yet held slaves testifies to the power of the institution of slavery over the minds and hearts of ALL that it affected.

Very true - and on that dynamic, I do appreciate the ways they didn't seek to make all Confederate soldiers out to look like they were automatically heartless or without real struggles - just as it is for others today.

People are people and often do horrible things - never justified, yet still understandable when considering how others experience change/growth. And with the ways systems impact others like slavery, I like what they did with the concept of the Transcontinental Railroad and the ways that the North benefited from it due to exploitation of many groups (which often occurred with Industrialization...just as oppressive as what occurred in the South with slavery) - and how many were trying to advance in difficult times.

I think the strength of the program is that it humanizes the people and shows the reality that not all unionists were saints and not all confederates were villains. I think it does this by showing the wounds caused by such an evil institution on many different groups.

Indeed - and if they really wanted to go further with it, I'd hope they be willing to show the ways that many blacks owned slaves......and fought for the Confederacy instead of the Union for complicated reasons (many of which focused on their technical skills being suited for the labor economy of the South/agriculture rather than the North - and other reasons being that they knew life in the North didn't offer them work and others were already discriminated against).

And when seeing how oppressive the North was to blacks - often minimizing its actions against them even after the Emacipation Proclamation (from rapes to taking away ability to defend themselves against attackers in court, disenfranchisement, beatings/being sold back into slavery even after being freed, murders, torture, etc.) - it was not a matter of all things Union being good and all things Confederacy being bad.

One of the best books on the issue is The Black West: A Documentary and Pictoral History of the African American Role in the Westward Expansion of the United States

I may be wrong in my assessment but then a lot of what we take from subjective things like entertainment is based on opinion and what we want to see.

Indeed...

 

[inconsequential]

It was uncharitable of me to put down the whole county because of the actions of only some of its residents. Forgive me.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

It was uncharitable of me to put down the whole county because of the actions of only some of its residents. Forgive me.

Not a problem - and forgiveness if anything I said may've been off...

 

[Brother Bread]

Christ's example was to die for others. but all wars are secular. started by greed, envy, Strife ect .



Marcellus, ?-298 A.D.

“I threw down my arms for it was not seemly that a Christian man, who renders military service to the Lord Christ, should render it by earthly injuries.” “It is not lawful for a Christian to bear arms for any earthly consideration.”
​

Ignatius of Antioch, approx. 35-110 A.D.

“Take heed, then, often to come together to give thanks to God, and show forth His praise. For when ye assemble frequently in the same place, the powers of Satan are destroyed, and the destruction at which he aims is prevented by the unity of your faith. Nothing is more precious than peace, by which all war, both in heaven and earth, is brought to an end.”
​

Irenaeus, approx. 180 A.D.

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

Justin Martyr, approx. 138 A.D.

“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.”
​

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Christ's example was to die for others. but all wars are secular. started by greed, envy, Strife ect .



Marcellus, ?-298 A.D.

“I threw down my arms for it was not seemly that a Christian man, who renders military service to the Lord Christ, should render it by earthly injuries.” “It is not lawful for a Christian to bear arms for any earthly consideration.”
​

Ignatius of Antioch, approx. 35-110 A.D.

“Take heed, then, often to come together to give thanks to God, and show forth His praise. For when ye assemble frequently in the same place, the powers of Satan are destroyed, and the destruction at which he aims is prevented by the unity of your faith. Nothing is more precious than peace, by which all war, both in heaven and earth, is brought to an end.”
​

Irenaeus, approx. 180 A.D.

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

Justin Martyr, approx. 138 A.D.

“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.”
​

I always find it interesting whenever the example of Christ is solely placed within the confines of dying for others even though how he returns is anything but non-violent.

The events of the Second Coming of Christ are found in the Bible, including the Book of Revelation–which is the last book in the New Testament. Jesus will “judge and wage war” (Rev. 19:11), his robe will be “dipped in blood” (19:13), and he will be accompanied by “armies” (19:14) with which he will “strike down the nations” (19:15), including “the Gentiles” in general and “the nations that were opposed to him” in specific. This will result in the “utter destruction of all his enemies”. Furthermore: “in his second coming[,] he will complete their destruction, when he shall put down all opposing rule, principality, and power.” Once he conquers the infidels, Jesus “will rule them with an iron rod” (Revelation 19:15)..

At that time Jesus will “will release the fierce wrath of God” (Rev 19:15) on them, and “he shall execute the severest judgment on the opposers of his truth”. Consequently, “every tribe on earth will mourn because of him” (Rev. 1:7), and they will “express the inward terror and horror of their minds, at his appearing; they will fear his resentment”. ....just as the people of Canaan were terrified by the Israelite army of the Lord.

1 Corinthians 15:24 [Jesus] will turn the Kingdom over to God the Father, having destroyed every ruler and authority and power.

I Corinthians 15:25 For Christ must reign until he humbles all his enemies beneath his feet.​

In His First coming He did the things mentioned in Isaiah 61:1-2 - but in His Second Coming He will do the things in verses 2-3. For when He returns He will bring judgment on unbelievers. This will be the day of God’s “vengeance.”

 

[AV1]

Christ's example was to die for others. but all wars are secular. started by greed, envy, Strife ect .



Marcellus, ?-298 A.D.

“I threw down my arms for it was not seemly that a Christian man, who renders military service to the Lord Christ, should render it by earthly injuries.” “It is not lawful for a Christian to bear arms for any earthly consideration.”
​

Ignatius of Antioch, approx. 35-110 A.D.

“Take heed, then, often to come together to give thanks to God, and show forth His praise. For when ye assemble frequently in the same place, the powers of Satan are destroyed, and the destruction at which he aims is prevented by the unity of your faith. Nothing is more precious than peace, by which all war, both in heaven and earth, is brought to an end.”
​

Irenaeus, approx. 180 A.D.

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

Justin Martyr, approx. 138 A.D.

“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.”
​

Christ died for others Spiritual healing and protection, not their Physical. Two very different things. Though there are correlations to be made across all boundaries, the one being made here is a stretch in my mid.

First of all, there is a difference in a war among nations, and self defense of the person. Sure, they are started for secular means...pretty hard to argue that point, and I won't. But starting a war has nothing to do with fighting back for the preservation of life, an honorable and merciful act.

Everything in context, surely, but I would hate to have to answer to God for allowing wicked men to harm an innocent when I had the power to intervene.

Nope. Not on my watch.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Christ's example was to die for others. but all wars are secular. started by greed, envy, Strife ect .



Marcellus, ?-298 A.D.

“I threw down my arms for it was not seemly that a Christian man, who renders military service to the Lord Christ, should render it by earthly injuries.” “It is not lawful for a Christian to bear arms for any earthly consideration.”
​

Ignatius of Antioch, approx. 35-110 A.D.

“Take heed, then, often to come together to give thanks to God, and show forth His praise. For when ye assemble frequently in the same place, the powers of Satan are destroyed, and the destruction at which he aims is prevented by the unity of your faith. Nothing is more precious than peace, by which all war, both in heaven and earth, is brought to an end.”
​

Irenaeus, approx. 180 A.D.

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

Justin Martyr, approx. 138 A.D.

“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.”
​

not necessarily, we do have saints who are saints because one of the things that they did was go to war to preserve Orthodoxy against others like St Davit the Restorer and St Alexander Nevsky, in addition to their great piety.

 

[inconsequential]

Where would the line be on combat behavior? I mean I couldn't strap a bomb on a small child as I've heard stories about the Vietcong doing but I've never been a big fan of chivalry. I regard "fair fight" as an oxymoron. Competitive "fighting" is different but combat where it's all on the line is a "no holds barred" scenario in my opinion. Ball is for target practice and barrier penetration; give me some JHPs for my sidearm and ballistic tipped ammo for my rifle.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Christ died for others Spiritual healing and protection, not their Physical. Two very different things. Though there are correlations to be made across all boundaries, the one being made here is a stretch in my mid.

First of all, there is a difference in a war among nations, and self defense of the person. Sure, they are started for secular means...pretty hard to argue that point, and I won't. But starting a war has nothing to do with fighting back for the preservation of life, an honorable and merciful act.

Everything in context, surely, but I would hate to have to answer to God for allowing wicked men to harm an innocent when I had the power to intervene.

Nope. Not on my watch.

Good analysis ....

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Where would the line be on combat behavior? I mean I couldn't strap a bomb on a small child as I've heard stories about the Vietcong doing but I've never been a big fan of chivalry. I regard "fair fight" as an oxymoron. Competitive "fighting" is different but combat where it's all on the line is a "no holds barred" scenario in my opinion. Ball is for target practice and barrier penetration; give me some JHPs for my sidearm and ballistic tipped ammo for my rifle.

That's a tough one to wrestle with....

 

[isshinwhat]

Where would the line be on combat behavior? I mean I couldn't strap a bomb on a small child as I've heard stories about the Vietcong doing but I've never been a big fan of chivalry. I regard "fair fight" as an oxymoron. Competitive "fighting" is different but combat where it's all on the line is a "no holds barred" scenario in my opinion. Ball is for target practice and barrier penetration; give me some JHPs for my sidearm and ballistic tipped ammo for my rifle.

My opinion only: if you have to kill someone, do it quickly and do it in such a way as minimizes the threat to you and those you are protecting. It's not about being fair, but protecting lives. If you have decided it's time to take someone's life, there is no room for "fair."

 

[Gxg (G²)]

My opinion only: if you have to kill someone, do it quickly and do it in such a way as minimizes the threat to you and those you are protecting. It's not about being fair, but protecting lives. If you have decided it's time to take someone's life, there is no room for "fair."

Is it possible to neutralize others in ways where violence is used to force them to be peaceful and change?

 

[AV1]

Is it possible to neutralize others in ways where violence is used to force them to be peaceful and change?

People surrender in war all the time as a result of violence. They don't want to die. The idea of coercion to peace and change often happens after the war has ended, but never before that I recall. Wars begin after an impasse. Persuasion is the role of ambassadors, not those on the front lines.

In my mind, if one is attacked, the time for diplomacy is over. The mindset must be to finish the fight, all else is a distraction to the preservation of life.

 

[isshinwhat]

Is it possible to neutralize others in ways where violence is used to force them to be peaceful and change?

Sometimes, yes, the threat of violence is enough to deter someone. Other times they just seem to decide it's their time to die, or whatever they are fighting for is worth the high risk of death. That being said, timelines can be so compressed that one doesn't have the time to wait and see if the threat of violence is enough.

 

[ArmyMatt]

My opinion only: if you have to kill someone, do it quickly and do it in such a way as minimizes the threat to you and those you are protecting. It's not about being fair, but protecting lives. If you have decided it's time to take someone's life, there is no room for "fair."

yep, that's how NATO approves their weapons (believe it or not, hahaha), is to prevent any undo suffering, and to stop someone with the least amount of appropriate force. doesn't always happen of course, but that is the ideal

 

[Gxg (G²)]

People surrender in war all the time as a result of violence. They don't want to die. The idea of coercion to peace and change often happens after the war has ended, but never before that I recall. Wars begin after an impasse. Persuasion is the role of ambassadors, not those on the front lines.

In my mind, if one is attacked, the time for diplomacy is over. The mindset must be to finish the fight, all else is a distraction to the preservation of life.

Interesting to consider what you noted..

For I was just reading through the Book of Esther today - amazed at the ways God can be present in a place even though you may never hear of his name in the story - and amazed to consider how nationalistic the book is when it comes to seeing how the Jews were given permission to defend themselves (although not to the point of petty revenge since they didn't take plunder) against any wishing o attack them. ...and the holiday was made to celebrate it, as seen in Esther 8-10 - that being a part of the testimony of God's work through the saints and what is to be kept in mind today.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Sometimes, yes, the threat of violence is enough to deter someone. Other times they just seem to decide it's their time to die, or whatever they are fighting for is worth the high risk of death. That being said, timelines can be so compressed that one doesn't have the time to wait and see if the threat of violence is enough.

It seems you're talking on the dynamic of human nature when it comes to remembering that it's not always easy for others to know what to do in the instant they are in the heat of the moment - as time can really make a difference with reaction speed.

And sometimes, there's a calculation ahead of time that someone does not want to end an act of violence regardless of what is offered.....

 

[inconsequential]

I've heard it said, "In combat, a bad decision MIGHT get you killed but indecision will do it most every time."

 

[isshinwhat]

It seems you're talking on the dynamic of human nature when it comes to remembering that it's not always easy for others to know what to do in the instant they are in the heat of the moment - as time can really make a difference with reaction speed.

And sometimes, there's a calculation ahead of time that someone does not want to end an act of violence regardless of what is offered.....

Yes, that is a large part of what I am saying. Sometimes, come Hell or high water, people are just going to fight, despite the high risk of death.

 

[isshinwhat]

I've heard it said, "In combat, a bad decision MIGHT get you killed but indecision will do it most every time."

Very true statement.