Alright, apologies again. I got drawn to this thread because Agustino pasted my name into it about four posts down. So, when I read it, I took it as a criticism of the approach I generally take on the Forum, which is why I thought that Agustino had mentioned it - which is often based around the 'perennial philosophy' - which I see generally as a noble pursuit. — Wayfarer

Right, he mentioned your name. I didn't. Truth be told, as soon as he did, I had a feeling you would come here with guns blazing, and it seems I wasn't far off the mark. However, you ought to have taken my OP at face value and not to have read into it some kind of implicit hit job on your views, regardless of whether I disagree with them.

I did encounter W T Stace during my studies, but where the question of the universalism of mystical experience came up, was in respect to an academic called Steven Katz. He argued that there is no such thing as a universal spiritual experience, that all such experiences, insofar as they are 'experiences', are culturally mediated and the product of a particular kind of cultural milieu. — Wayfarer

Yeah, I've read a paper by Katz before. His views don't convince me either. Though I didn't explicitly say it, I sort of implied that I'm most partial to inclusivism. Neither extreme, perennialism/universalism on the one hand and exclusivism/constructionism on the other, convinces me.

But anyway, if you're criticizing a kind of non-committed syncretism, with bits taken from here and there, and no real commitment, then I agree with that and sorry for being so prickly. — Wayfarer

Don't worry about it. I have a high tolerance for banter and frosty exchanges, even among friends.

I agree with all of that.

No matter what path you are on, no matter what you "believe", no matter what you search for, no matter what approach you take, etc., probably at least one person will tell you that it is unequivocally wrong.

Just look at all of the exchanges in this thread.

One person says this. Another person says that. Another person says he agrees with this. Another person says he agrees with that.

If there is anything that 99.9% of people seem to have in common, it is that they believe that there is categorically one behavior or set of behaviors that every person's life must be reduced to.

Another thing that they all have in common: they almost never seem to have any concrete, vetted evidence of the consequences of failure to reduce life to such a behavior or set of behaviors. It is always a lot of speculation, anecdotes about violent conflicts/confrontations that historians have narrativized (as if the work of historians is unbiased and infallible), utopian fantasies about how the world would be perfect if everybody accepted this belief and rejected that belief, etc. They act as if they are reporting relationships that are as certain to rational people as the relationship between ocean tides and the moon.

And if you point out the oppressive/repressive nature of their whole struggle over beliefs, spirituality, etc. they will play the "relativism" card against you like it is somehow a trump card. Maybe it is a trump card--in a game where they have made the rules.

The challenge in life is not finding the right way, the coherent way, that rational way, etc. The challenge in life, as this thread so clearly illustrates, is safely navigating one's way through the cesspool of collective human thought and somehow experiencing some fulfillment and satisfaction along the way.

The point with your criticism of me with regards to pluralism is that you deny the triumph of truth. You don't seem to understand that there is a relationship between truth and authority - in that truth is authoritative. If truth is no longer authoritative, then we end up in a post-truth world, and I think we have actually been in a post-truth world for a very long time - largely because of people like you, I would add. When you irrationally undermine authority and 'triumphalism' then you also undermine truth, for how can truth exist if it is not authoritative? Is it not its authority that guarantees its truth so to speak? Its unavoidableness? It is the authority (its unavoidableness) of the law of gravity that guarantees its truth. — Agustino

In addition to, and support of, Janus reply to your point. Again, I think your attitude is probably based in fear of disorder or social collapse, and as a consequence, the belief in the necessity of a strong authority to maintain order and the tradition. It is basically conservatism, although as I have noted previously in your case this extends to admiration for strong-man leaders like Putin and a disdain for democracy, so it is more like authoritarianism than conservatism as such. You are entitled to your view, but I don't think it has anything to do with the 'gospel of love' that I take to be central to Christianity. 'My burden', said Jesus, 'is light'.

https://youtu.be/FdYYCUoKH9M

The question of 'authority' in religion is a vexed one. I think a very strong historical case can be made for the fact that the Catholic Church devised the model for authoritarianism. I don't wish to be a 'church basher', because I also recognise the positive role played by the Church in history. But their assumption of the authority of being the sole custodian of the Word, has had many profound consequences. This was amplified by the fact that they appropriated much of what was worthwhile in what they called 'pagan philosophy' and then, so to speak, locked it in the Vatican vaults, from whence it could only be accessed on their terms. 'Sign the contract, then you can read it'.

Obviously one of the main motivations of Lutheranism was to disintermediate priestly authority and restore the individual's direct relationship with God through Christ and scripture ('sola scriptura'). But that has also had many, shall we say, unintended consequences.

I personally hold Patristic model of the orthodox faiths in higher estimation - I suppose you could say Greek rather than Latin Christianity - not least because they preserved the Platonistic elements of the tradition better. But even so, the Orthodox churches have also probably been complicit in the support of authoritarianism. (I say 'probably' because I haven't studied the matter, but I would presume it's there to be found.)

But, the role of Zen Buddhism in the Japanese Imperial Army also has to be acknowledged. As numerous people have pointed out (including Zizek), the Japanese devised elaborate rationalisations for such abominable practices as suicide bombing in terms of the Buddhist ethos by adapting, or distorting, it, to the so called 'way of the warrior'. This was not uniform, there were Buddhist monks and priests who were conscientious objectors, but there were others who 'blessed the fleet', and so on.

Human nature is corruptible, and religion is a human institution. Furthermore, when it proclaims itself the custodian of the 'treasure of salvation' then it puts itself into a position of extraordinary power. I think suspicion or rejection of that is commendable, albeit not at the cost of going to the other extreme of outright antinomianism, nihilism or materialism.

Take, for example, Christ's teaching of non-resistance to evil by violence, or resistance to evil by non-violence, if you prefer. That teaching, which is absolutely central to the gospels, has never been institutionalized, practiced or even recommended for practice by any ecclesiastical or political authority. — Janus

Well that's certainly one side of Christ. The other side of Christ is taking the whip and chasing the money-lenders out of the temple.

I have to say I'm with ↪Wayfarer on this. Truth may or may not triumph, because it is only truly potent insofar as it is found in, and founded upon, personal experience and/or or freely believed on the basis of conscience and intuition. Truth has nothing whatsoever to do with authority. — Janus

:s why is it potent only insofar as it is found? I'd argue that someone who is immoral for example hurts their and other people's souls (whether they are aware of this or not), just as objectively as an apple falls to the ground when dropped. Truth is necessarily an authority, for it is as it is regardless of what one thinks of it - in fact, even if one is unaware of it.

The "law of gravity" example seems glaringly inapt because gravity is beyond dispute; whereas no doctrine is indisputable. The attempt to objectify doctrine is the first step towards religious bigotry and fundamentalism. When it comes to religion, truths are not determinate like empirical matters of fact; religion and spirituality are, and should remain, deeply personal, uncoerced, matters. There is no religious or spiritual truth apart from that. — Janus

Mystical truths are not determinate like empirical matters, but I would argue that moral truths are determinate, even though we live in an age where we seem to always disagree over what is moral and immoral.

Again, I think your attitude is probably based in fear of disorder or social collapse, and as a consequence, the belief in the necessity of a strong authority to maintain order and the tradition. — Wayfarer

Well, we are already in moral disarray pretty much, so what's there left to fear? The question is how to solve this. The higher truths presuppose these lower ones.

You are entitled to your view, but I don't think it has anything to do with the 'gospel of love' that I take to be central to Christianity. — Wayfarer

I think authority and love are intimately interlinked. Lovers are always grasping after the security that only authority can provide - in this case the authority of God. What did Kierkegaard write in his Works of Love? Did he not say that two lovers are in despair lest they swear their love by the Eternal - by God - who alone can secure it and raise it from the vagaries of time? This is one of the reasons K. framed his relationships, even in Sickness Unto Death, as the relationship between self, other and God.

the authority of God. — Agustino

You mean, the authority of one born in a manger. What kind of authority is that?

What I'm talking about is 'authoritarianism', generally, which overall I think ought to be resisted. The alternative to authoritarianism is not necessarily decadence or moral decay.

What I'm talking about is 'authoritarianism', generally, which overall I think ought to be resisted. — Wayfarer

Authoritarianism is different than authority. Authority has a rational basis for its enforcement, whereas authoritarianism undermines its own authority by destroying the rational basis people would have for following it.

You mean, the authority of one born in a manger. What kind of authority is that? — Wayfarer

Have you not read Revelation?

Well that's certainly one side of Christ. The other side of Christ is taking the whip and chasing the money-lenders out of the temple. — Agustino

So he made a whip out of cords, and drove all from the temple courts, both sheep and cattle; he scattered the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables. – John 2:13-15 NIV

It's not clear that he actually struck anyone with a whip. In any case even if Christ did use violence, presumably he knew what he was doing and why. The principle of non-violence is for mere mortals who cannot be sure they would be justified in causing harm to, much less killing. others.

In other words, even if Jesus used real violence ( which is highly questionable), that could never justify anyone else in its use. What I am saying is predicated upon Jesus' divine status as the Son. If we think Jesus is a mere enlightened mortal, then of course, his actions could be seen as an unjustifiable momentary moral lapse brought about by justifiable anger. Enlightenment does not mean perfection; no mortal person is perfect. Moral lapses on the part of exemplars cannot justify any deliberate moral actions of others that imitate them.

— Janus:why is it potent only insofar as it is found? I'd argue that someone who is immoral for example hurts their and other people's souls (whether they are aware of this or not), just as objectively as an apple falls to the ground when dropped. Truth is necessarily an authority, for it is as it is regardless of what one thinks of it - in fact, even if one is unaware of it. — Agustino

I think we are speaking of different things. What I mean is that the truth is potent, in the sense of authentic, only insofar as it is intuited and experienced. In other words if people merely pay lip service to what they have been told is the truth, then their service is not authentic (potent). I don't have much time for the churches; although I recognize their value as regulative authorities for the masses who might never think for themselves or exercise genuine conscience. I also recognize their value as keepers of the tradition. The unfortunate part is that they have distorted the teachings. This distortion happens, I believe, in all religions.

Mystical truths are not determinate like empirical matters, but I would argue that moral truths are determinate, even though we live in an age where we seem to always disagree over what is moral and immoral. — Agustino

I agree that moral truth is real, and that if you are in the right mind you will naturally intuit what is good and what is evil in any circumstance. Aristotle refers to this right thinking as "phronesis" or 'practical wisdom'. I have no doubt you are already aware of this. But I don't think moral truths can be inter-subjectively determined and corroborated in any ways analogous to the ways in which empirical facts can.

What I mean is that the truth is potent, in the sense of authentic, only insofar as it is intuited and experienced. In other words if people merely pay lip service to what they have been told is the truth, then their service is not authentic (potent). — Janus

Agree - but then there is the issue of subjectivism and/or relativism - what if my 'spiritual experience' is simply a delusion? What if it is being driven by my own unconscious lack or desire? God knows delusions are real, they rule nations nowadays and there are plenty of spiritual practitioners who have fallen victim to delusion. That is where I understand the appeal to 'authority' - although in the sense of a 'spiritual mentor' or director who can validate or critique your experiences. Which is exactly what spiritual orders are supposed to do.

Which, again, is one of the main values of understanding the perspective of perennial philosophies - because through that perspective, you can understand how these problems have been handled in a wide variety of traditions and cultures. That is, again, where the theosophical (small t) approach has value.

It's not clear that he actually struck anyone with a whip. In any case even if Christ did use violence, presumably he knew what he was doing and why. The principle of non-violence is for mere mortals who cannot be sure they would be justified in causing harm to, much less killing. others. — Janus

I never disagreed with your point, I just disagreed with the one-sided interpretation you were initially giving of Jesus.

However, I will say that in some cases the use of violence is justified. In case of war for example, violently resisting the oppressor is justified. But I agree with your point that violence should only be a last resort in critical situations where another alternative doesn't exist.

What I mean is that the truth is potent, in the sense of authentic, only insofar as it is intuited and experienced. In other words if people merely pay lip service to what they have been told is the truth, then their service is not authentic (potent). — Janus

I agree with this.

The unfortunate part is that they have distorted the teachings. — Janus

I would disagree here, I think quite the contrary, the churches have preserved the teachings, despite the serious defects that they have shown through history.

The problem I see, though, is that it is still up to you to decide who is an authentic "mentor" or "director". Surely one relies upon one's own spiritual 'intuitions' in choosing what traditions. what literature, communal life, practices, to be inspired by, or what 'master' to follow. or whether to follow any master, belong to any institution, and so on.

Which, again, is one of the main values of understanding the perspective of perennial philosophies - because through that perspective, you can understand how these problems have been handled in a wide variety of traditions and cultures. That is, again, where the theosophical (small t) approach has value. — Wayfarer

I agree that such a broad knowledge might be helpful, but it might also lead to confusion. I think that when it comes to following spiritual practices it is the strength and depth of the intuitions of the aspirant, and the commitment to follow those intuitions that really count.It seems to me that there are no hard and fast rules, and that every individual case is different.

.

However, I will say that in some cases the use of violence is justified. In case of war for example, violently resisting the oppressor is justified. But I agree with your point that violence should only be a last resort in critical situations where another alternative doesn't exist. — Agustino

If you accept Jesus' proscription against violent resistance to evil, then it is not justified even in the case of self-defence. There really is no hope for humanity if everyone just keeps arming themselves against their neighbours. Someone has to be courageous and take the risk of vulnerability in order to stop the rot. How much is spent on armaments and defence systems today that could be spent on schools, hospitals, feeding the poor? I would say there is always another alternative, but hardly ever anyone courageous enough to take it. Tolstoy is good on this interpretation of Christianity; see his The Kingdom of God is Within You.

I would disagree here, I think quite the contrary, the churches have preserved the teachings, despite the serious defects that they have shown through history. — Agustino

I agree, the church preserves the tradition; and develops it as well. This may not always lead to distortions, but much of ecclesiastical "development" has been self-serving. Of course churches have to survive if they want to fulfill their missions.Obviously it's a complex issue, and I would never advocate simply getting rid of the various religious institutions. even if that were possible. It also pays to remember, I think, that the scriptures of the various religions would likely have been preserved in any case, just as any other literature (and art, architecture and music etc.) that is deemed to be important has been, wherever possible, preserved.

Take, for example, Christ's teaching of non-resistance to evil by violence, or resistance to evil by non-violence, if you prefer. That teaching, which is absolutely central to the gospels, has never been institutionalized, practiced or even recommended for practice by any ecclesiastical or political authority. — Janus

Those who renounce violence and bloodshed and, in order to safeguard human rights, make use of those means of defense available to the weakest, bear witness to evangelical charity, provided they do so without harming the rights and obligations of other men and societies. They bear legitimate witness to the gravity of the physical and moral risks of recourse to violence, with all its destruction and death. — The Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2306.

It is worthwhile to read the entire chapter:

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a5.htm

That teaching, which is absolutely central to the gospels, has never been institutionalized, practiced or even recommended for practice by any ecclesiastical or political authority. — Janus

I do wonder about that. The recent movie, which I didn't see, Hacksaw Ridge, was about a 7th Day Adventist who refused to bear arms and performed heroically as a medic, evacuating wounded marines under extreme risk. There are many other such examples. Sure the Churches haven't got clean hands but I don't think you can make this blanket statement.

The Catholic church has perpetrated horrendous violence, and the mainstream churches, at the very least, have capitulated to warmongering governments.

I appreciate that no one would wish to lay down their arms and submit to oppressors. There are no easy answers to the problems posed by the human situation. But I really feel there is no hope if military spending continues as it has. This insane escalation of weaponry is the result of either the wish to dominate or the fear of being dominated.

I agree with your general point but I don't think you can make a blanket statement that Jesus' teachings of non-resistance has 'never been institutionalized, practiced or even recommended for practice.'

But the context was, I had asked Agustino why, if the 'truth of the Christian church' was so self-evident. and so superior to all other religions, so much blood had been shed by Christians in the religious wars. His answer was along the lines that this doesn't detract from the purported truth of the Christian gospel. At which point, I gave up on that line of argument.

has linked a chapter from the catechism that he recommends in relation to this. As soon as I find time I'll read it and respond. Meanwhile, can you think of any examples of non-resistance being "institutionalized, practiced or even recommended" by the mainstream churches? I am aware of unusual subversive examples like the Cathars.

I believe I do agree with Agustino about one thing; and that is that Christ's teaching is the highest, the most profound of any of the traditions. I acknowledge that I think that because it has the most affinity with what I understand to be the truth about the human condition; that salvation is to be found in authentic love and repentance, which infallibly leads to real transformation. Where we might disagree is about the importance of being affiliated with some church or other.

can you think of any examples of non-resistance being "institutionalized, practiced or even recommended" by the mainstream churches? — Janus

That was from a catechism from the Catholic Church. You italicized mainstream. Is your point that the Catholic Church is not a mainstream church?

Incidentally, there is similar language in the Catechism of Trent (16th century):

Freedom From Violence, Anger, Hatred And Inhumanity

There are some crimes, such as violence and murder, which are in a special way obstacles to the efficacy of our prayers, and we must, therefore, preserve our hands unstained by outrage and cruelty. Of such crimes the Lord says by the mouth of Isaias: When you stretch forth your hands, I will turn away my eyes from you; and when you multiply prayer, I will not hear, for your hands are full of blood.

Anger and strife we should also avoid, for they have great influence in preventing our prayers from being heard. Concerning them the Apostle says: l will that men pray in every place lifting up pure hands, without anger and contention.

Implacable hatred of any person on account of injuries received we must guard against; for while we are under the influence of such feelings,- it is impossible that we should obtain from God the pardon of our sins. When you shall stand to pray, He says, forgive, if you have aught against any man; and, if you will not forgive men, neither will your heavenly Father forgive you your offences.

So, the Catholic Church has clearly recommended, consistently, a non-violent approach.

As for "practiced", of course hundreds of thousands of Christians (a conservative number by the way) have practiced non-violence since the beginning of Christianity.

Then we come to "institutionalized". Yep, the Church has also institutionalized non-violent practices, again from its early beginnings. To cite only one example, Christians have been building and supporting monasteries (an intrinsically non-violent institution) for centuries. The first "armed monks" in Christianity appeared with the Crusades, more than 1000 years after Christ; and they are gone, while the non-violent monks remain.

I have a scientific background. I find it useful, when one is studying ideas, institutions, and history, to imagine a "control group". The question is not "was institution X recommending non-violence" -- I'm sure we can find, if we dig deep enough, some Nazist statements that can be interpreted like that, and it becomes the proverbial "table tennis without nets". The question must be, "if that period, with those peoples, did not have institution X, would their behavior be better or worse than it actually was?"

That was from a catechism from the Catholic Church. You italicized mainstream. Is your point that the Catholic Church is not a mainstream church? — Mariner

No, my point is that the Catholic Church has not institutionalized and practiced non-violence. I don't count, and am not concerned with, the "recommendation" of non-violence in familial and societal contexts; that is simply a normal prescription for social and familial harmony. The Catholic church (and other mainstream churches) have never advocated that its members refuse to bear arms or go to war in the service of the state. For another example, the churches have never come out strongly against gun ownership. Another historical example: the Vatican failed to speak out against Mussolini.

So, the churches' "recommendation" of "a non-violent approach" looks somewhat toothless; it seems to be another case of mere lip-service.

The question must be, "if that period, with those peoples, did not have institution X, would their behavior be better or worse than it actually was?" — Mariner

I have no argument with this angle; and I have already stated that by saying that I would never recommend, even if it were possible, abolition of religious institutions. I have also said that I think they are beneficial, perhaps even necessary, influences on the thinking and behavior (well, at least the behavior) of those who cannot, or will not think for themselves. My argument has more been concerned with the failure of religious institutions to take authentic stances on the principle of non-violence, while acknowledging all the risk and vulnerability that would bring. I see Christ as a radical advocate of that very vulnerability and risk; in fact as the greatest ever such advocate. I have also been concerned with what I see as the irrelevance of the religious institutions to spiritual aspirants who can and will think for themselves, and are genuinely willing to practice what they preach in good faith.

I support Kant's and Hegel's shared principle that we (at least those of us who are capable and willing to) need to step out from under the shadows of the "aegis of tutelage".

No, my point is that the Catholic Church has not institutionalized and practiced non-violence. I don't count, and am not concerned with, the "recommendation" of non-violence in familial and societal contexts; that is simply a normal prescription for social and familial harmony — Janus

Your claim was, and I quote (again): Take, for example, Christ's teaching of non-resistance to evil by violence, or resistance to evil by non-violence, if you prefer. That teaching, which is absolutely central to the gospels, has never been institutionalized, practiced or even recommended for practice by any ecclesiastical or political authority.

You were concerned with recommendation back then.

The Catholic church (and other mainstream churches) have never advocated that its members refuse to bear arms or go to war in the service of the state. For another example, the churches have never come out strongly against gun ownership. Another historical example: the Vatican failed to speak out against Mussolini. — Janus

You are, as I pointed out, confusing the Church hierarchy and the Church authority. They are not the same thing. In a Christian Church (including the Catholic Church), the highest authorities are the saints -- which is why they often rebuke priests, bishops and popes (in the case of the Catholic Church, of course).

In any case, the idea that the evangelical counsel against violence is translatable into "let us not have guns", or your other points, is clearly debatable. (Christ said that his disciples should acquire some swords, remember?)

I have also been concerned with what I see as the irrelevance of the religious institutions to spiritual aspirants who can and will think for themselves, and are genuinely willing to practice what they preach in good faith. — Janus

Not all people are spiritual aspirants who can and will think for themselves, and salvation is for all, not just for an elite.

You were concerned with recommendation back then. — Mariner

Yes, but my claim is not that the church does not recommend non-violence per se, but that it does not recommend non-violent resistance to evil. The latter is a very different issue.

You are, as I pointed out, confusing the Church hierarchy and the Church authority. — Mariner

I am only concerned to address the manifest behavior of the churches as institutions; I am not making any claims about the internal relations between "hierarchy" and "authority".

In any case, the idea that the evangelical counsel against violence is translatable into "let us not have guns", or your other points, is clearly debatable. (Christ said that his disciples should acquire some swords, remember?) — Mariner

This is really the point. What does Christ mean by "turn the other cheek", "give the thief your shirt as well"? If these are interpreted as being injunctions to adopt radical non-violence as the true path to salvation, then it seems obvious that the churches are at variance with this, because this has not been the 'official' interpretation of the churches.

On the other hand what does Jesus mean when he says "I come not to bring peace but a sword"? I don't recall a passage in which he says the disciples should acquire swords. Could you provide a reference for that?

Not all people are spiritual aspirants who can and will think for themselves, and salvation is for all, not just for an elite. — Mariner

Sure, and I have already acknowledged that. But this does beg the question as to what exactly constitutes salvation. If you think it only consists in genuine repentance, then I would ask you whether you believe a genuine repentant would bear arms against others under any circumstances. And more broadly I would ask you whether you think there are many genuine repentants among us. Or does 'salvation is for everyone" mean something else?

"I come not to bring peace but a sword" - the sword of discriminating wisdom, seen here wielded by Mañjuśrī

salvation is for all, not just for an elite — Mariner

Are 'the elite' anything like 'the elect' in Calvinism?

"I come not to bring peace but a sword" - the sword of discriminating wisdom, seen here wielded by Mañjuśrī — Wayfarer

Yes, I tend to favour that interpretation, too.

Luke 22:36 - Then said he unto them: But now he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise a scrip; and he that hath not, let him sell his coat, and buy a sword.

Then his disciples say, Master, here are two swords, and he says, that's enough.

At least it is enough to open up an interesting debate on PF :D.

Sure, and I have already acknowledged that. But this does beg the question as to what exactly constitutes salvation. If you think it only consists in genuine repentance, then I would ask you whether you believe a genuine repentant would bear arms against others under any circumstances. And more broadly I would ask you whether you think there are many genuine repentants among us. Or does 'salvation is for everyone" mean something else? — Janus

Repentance is not the same thing as salvation. One can repent some sin and still refuse the gift of Christ. And similarly, one can accept the gift of Christ and keep on sinning, since salvation and sanctification are also not the same thing.

Salvation is that you accept that Christ died for your sins (past, present and future), and that your sins are blotted out to the extent that you adhere to Christ. It is not a magic trick like the cartoon conversion (hey, I was baptized, so let me sin a lot). St. Paul has a lot to say about this stupidity. It is a constant, lifelong endeavor for most good Christians.

Would a genuine repentant bear arms against others "under any circumstances"? Sure. I used to present the thought experiment of someone getting home and finding a guy raping his wife or child (or both). Would not most people use violence (and most likely lethal violence) to stop this? Note that I say this as someone who has publicly (in the old forum for those who remember) defended the notion that any killing is evil, including the killing of the rapist in this scenario. If I met this scenario, I don't know what I would do. I'm quite sure that I would violence, I don't know whether I could restrain myself to non-lethal violence, and I'm absolutely positive that killing the guy would be wrong -- even though it is a live possibility that I would kill him.

Are you familiar with the Catharist heresy?

@Wayfarer

Calvinism is a good example of the stupidity that St. Paul warns us against.

No argument from me!

Are you familiar with the Catharist heresy? — Mariner

I read The Perfect Heresy: The Life and Death of the Cathars, Stephen O'Shea, a few years back. Interesting - and depressing.

incidentally, Ed Feser, noted Thomist philosopher, is a staunch and principled advocate of the death penalty for capital crimes. I myself can see the justification for capital punishment in many case, but in practice, if it is institutionalised, there will always be innocent persons executed, for which reason, I oppose it.

Would a genuine repentant bear arms against others "under any circumstances"? Sure. I used to present the thought experiment of someone getting home and finding a guy raping his wife or child (or both). Would not most people use violence (and most likely lethal violence) to stop this? Note that I say this as someone who has publicly (in the old forum for those who remember) defended the notion that any killing is evil, including the killing of the rapist in this scenario. If I met this scenario, I don't know what I would do. I'm quite sure that I would violence, I don't know whether I could restrain myself to non-lethal violence, and I'm absolutely positive that killing the guy would be wrong -- even though it is a live possibility that I would kill him. — Mariner

Where are you getting the idea that all killing is wrong? Have you not heard of the principle of double effect, which is taught by the Catholic Church and accepted by most non-consequentialist philosophers? Murder is wrong, intrinsically so, which means that it is never justified. Killing a rapist to protect your wife is not murder, however, but manslaughter. The Hebrew word sometimes translated as "kill" in the commandment, "thou shalt not kill," is vague and has been traditionally interpreted by both Jews and Christians to refer to murder. Both admit that there are legitimate exceptions to the commandment regardless, such as in the case of your example.