/lit/ - Literature

>>18640132
>thou shalt do as your nation says and go to war
Yea.
Wrong board though

why don't you ask the lord yourself?

>>18640153
>thou shalt do as your nation says and go to war

So much for don't kill. But killing in war is different.. somehow.. how convenient!

>>18640234
Probably because the commandment referred to murder and not war.

>>18640519
>War isn't government sanctioned murder

Fuck off with that weak bullshit cope. Killing is killing is killing.

>>18640542
Murder is not any type of killing m8

>>18640542
its always intensely personal killing that gets the most attention, never state-sanctioned killing. i do think armies are no differebt than state-employed mercenaries imo, even if not all of them engage in active combat.

>>18640542
And have you heard of the Crusades?

>>18640132
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biathanatos
https://libgen.is/fiction/0288D3D0EA1C677A4237050B39F8425C

>>18640552
War is different because soldiers have made a sort of agreement to kill one another. Arguably organized criminals killing each other are doing something similar. In both cases killing a civilian is worse morally, if course irl civilians always do get killed in war

>>18640555
>And have you heard of the Crusades?
crusaders were declared heretics and burned alive, looks like someone needs to open a history BOOK

Fuck all the faggots in this thread.
READ YOUR CATECHISM.
> 2308 All citizens and all governments are obliged to work for the avoidance of war.
However, "as long as the danger of war persists and there is no international authority with the necessary competence and power, governments cannot be denied the right of lawful self-defense, once all peace efforts have failed."105

> 2309 The strict conditions for legitimate defense by military force require rigorous consideration. the gravity of such a decision makes it subject to rigorous conditions of moral legitimacy. At one and the same time:
> - the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;
> - all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;
> - there must be serious prospects of success;
> - the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. the power of modem means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.

>>18640555
Yeah, no shit buttercuck. Catholics are scum, what a surprise...

>>18641110
Which crusaders? Do you have any idea how many "crusades" there actually were?

Fuck the Crusades I want to talk about the Thirty Years War and how Christcucks quietly sweep that one under the rug all the time.

>INB4 IT WASN'T RELIGIOUS IT WAS POLITICAL!!
>IT HAPPENED A LONG TIME AGO SO IT DOESN'T MAAAAATTERRRRR!!!

>>18640555
The crusades were 100% justified.

>>18642670
this

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I_To-cV94Bo

>>18641143
Look at this fag already having a meltdown

A lot of people who cite the crusades as evidence of Christian aggression don't realize it was largely the Normans (originally pagan warbands who loved invading every piece of land they could), who had already invaded Italy, surrounded and threatened the Pope, who forced the Crusades. The Crusades never would have occurred without the Normans basically injecting religiously fervent militarism into an otherwise stagnant Catholic Church. Just look at the Orthodox Church if you doubt me; no crusades, very few holy wars, mostly stagnant peace. Orthodoxy, and I don't say this to discredit Catholicism, represents the more original spirit of Christianity. The Catholic Crusades were mostly a product of the Normans' incessant need for war and conquest, because they retained the old pagan blood and spirit. These wars were basically the only serious Christian (religious) militarism/imperialism since Charlemagne.

>>18643159
>it was, hmmm.... normans who were behind the albigensian crusade! northern too!
uh huh

>>18643159
Smells like historical revisionism

>>18641128
/thread

>>18643195
ortholarpers make up history as they go, it's what they're most comfortable with after spending years using paradox games to alleviate their racial dysphoria

>>18642670
Why does the first commandment even fucking exist in Christianity?

The fuckers don't follow it..

>>18643182
You may have noticed that I stated that Normans "injected" fervent militarism into the church. As for the Northern, it's a similar situation: Teutonic Knights who still possess that pagan flair for violence and conquest.

>>18643209
>>18643195
I'm not Orthodox, it is the weaker and more pathetic Church.

>>18640132
“Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.”
John 15:3

Yes, it's right there in the bible. I think deliberate suicide is a case by case basis, though. Do you mean if the enemy commanded a man kill himself to save others?

>>18643214
>mfw paganism is so strong it lives dormant in the bloodlines of northmen for centuries, and spreads easily to french, venetians, dalmatians...

bros who made paganism so OP?

>>18643211
It refers to murder in specific, it never applied to self defense, killing enemy soldiers in war or passing death sentences. Right after Moses is given the 10 commandments he kills a bunch of idolaters and then they go on to conquer the holy land from the canaanites.

>>18643250
>N-N-NO, WAR ISN'T MURDER! T-THOU SHALT NOT KILL ACTUALLY MEANS MURDER!
>I-T'S TWO C-COMPLETELY DIFFERENT THINGS S-S-SOMEHOW!

See, this is why people hate these religions.

>>18643248
The Venetians were opportunistic merchants. The Dalmatians and "French" (a misleading term to begin with because we are only considering the aristocracy, and the Norman aristocracy at that, which also intermingled with the others, both geographically and with marriage) I have already explained, it doesn't require much intelligence to understand. There is a certain degree of military momentum that is built up after the initial crusades into Jerusalem as well, which were spearheaded by Norman knights (this is not revisionism, basic knowledge of the subject will tell you of the military importance of the Normans in the initial crusades).

>>18643211
> Why couldn't the Church just do nothing after Muslims conquered literally 2/3 of the former Christian world, directly attacked Rome, murdered thousands of Christians on Christian holidays for kek, and failed to reason with them for about 4 and a half century.

“(for) both the grace of the pilgrimage and under the protection of God, to exterminate wickedness and unrestrained rage of the pagans by which innumerable Christians have already been oppressed, made captive, and killed, it ought to be a beautiful ideal for you to die for Christ in that city where Christ died for you."

>>18643274
>I'm not smart enough to understand the difference so other people are stupid

>>18643289
bro just because you learned about bohemond recently and it fit nice and snuggly into your preexisting norman fantasies doesn't mean literally anyone is going to believe your alt history about a cabal of crypto-pagans making the church violent

To answer the OP, "maybe". One could argue Samson killed himself to ensure the safety of his people by destroying the enemy. Samson was already going to die though, and merely asked God to give him the strength to take Israel's enemies with him. You could argue Jesus in a way "took his own life" by allowing himself to be killed I guess. However, I don't know if outright suicide would ever be condoned. I imagine the preferable choice would be to retain hope in God to deliver you rather than succumbing.

>>18643274
Holy reddit, you can't think for yourself at all, can you?

>>18643315
I never said they were crypto-pagans. Read my posts more carefully. The Normans were, in the specific religious sense, fully converted to Catholicism already. Do you want to take a guess why their patron saint was St Michael (they erected many abbeys in his honor)?

>>18640132
Taking your own life deliberately? I don't think so. It would be a nice hypothetical to ask a priest, "can a psychopath commit suicide and be welcomed into Heaven if he does it because he believes that it is the only way to protect others from himself?" On one hand, the Church stresses that one must be spiritually purified in order to enter Heaven, and suicide is doubly wrong in that it is a sin and by its very nature robs you of the chance of being purified. On the other hand, true, honest charity is the best way to enter Heaven. Someone who lives in the spirit of charity and does not know of God or Jesus will enter Heaven regardless.
I think that in these situation the Church usually will say that it's up to God to decide in each cases, being the only one capable of knowing what lies our men's hearts. God made his Sacraments binding but He is not bound by them, which is why the Church claims that children, despite not having had the chance to learn of God properly, always go to him.
However, once again, FUCK ALL THE FAGGOTS IN THIS THREAD GOING ON ABOUT THE MILITARY.
> “Greater love than this no man hath, that a man lay down his life for his friends” (Jn 15:13)

>>18643378
i read your post carefully enough to see you are committed to dramatically downplaying how the first crusade was largely a product of french nobility, french pope, and mostly french manpower, to fixate on an interesting minority instead

unironically take your meds, you are clearly suffering from some sort of derangement that leads you to look for secret explanations and conspiracies
either that or youre a butthurt french catholic that is looking to pass the blame to a nonexistent minority you are glad was removed from your country

>>18643318
I find the question a bit contrived. One can die to save others, but in what possible scenario could one's suicide make peoples lives better (where one leaving wouldn't have the exact same effect)?

>>18643412
>was largely a product of french nobility, french pope, and mostly french manpower
They were factors. They were not the most important factors. (Also, for the record, next time you investigate this subject, try to find out how many of those "French nobles" are actually Normans - they are often mixed together, because the Normans spoke French as well).
Either way, try to learn more about the subject.

Given that was part of martyrdom, yes, kys christcuck.

>>18643412
This poster is clearly a dishonest person

>>18643412
I don't know if you're aware of this also, but the entire Eastern Roman Empire was almost conquered by a single Norman (and his knights) who sailed from Italy - Robert Guiscard. The only reason it was not, is because he died of typhus off the coast with his army before he could set foot there. This would be a far more absurd claim to make about the power of the Normans, but this is actual historical fact.

>>18643412
>you are glad was removed from your country
They just moved to Quebec.
> "The Quebec population [was] defined very early along lines which were kept subsequently, because immigration contributed only marginally to its growth. After one century of settlement, spouses whose ethnic origin was French still represented 97% of the total, with Normandy, the Paris region and the West of France contributing...about two thirds."

>>18643433
>Also, for the record, next time you investigate this subject, try to find out how many of those "French nobles" are actually Normans
enlightment me, which french were secret normans?
im honestly all ears, which prominent french noble was secretly norman?
and it better be that his father was 100% norman and changed his name to hide it, otherwise if you tell me someone's great grandma was from normandy we're right back to you suggesting secret pagan bloodlines lying dormant

>>18643274
There is obviously a difference between killing an enemy combatant in a war and murdering a random person on the street. You should be able to recognize this even if you're not religious.

>>18643159
The Crusades were a reaction to Muslims forcefully taking Christian territories in the middle east and Africa (which previously belonged to the Byzantines) and then trying to conquer Europe itself. Trade with the east wasn't even possible anymore since Europe was surrounded by all sides by Muslims. "Muh evil crusades" is an incredibly retarded argument to anyone familiar with history.

>>18643571
Only in the sense you are being forced to kill in war, but does "I was only following orders" cover your soul? Take the Christmas Truce in WW1, where soldiers who had previously been trying to kill each other instead celebrated with the enemy. It should also be pointed out, Jesus never killed anyone or advocated for war.

>>18643643
Moses appears next to him in the transfiguration, and he did. Jesus had nothing but good things to say about the Law, the Prophets and King David, which implies he's okay with most of the things they did. The Christian view is that killing is fine when done in a just war.

>>18643643
>but does "I was only following orders" cover your soul?
No, you are ultimately responsible for your actions.

> 2310 Public authorities, in this case, have the right and duty to impose on citizens the obligations necessary for national defense.
Those who are sworn to serve their country in the armed forces are servants of the security and freedom of nations. If they carry out their duty honorably, they truly contribute to the common good of the nation and the maintenance of peace.

> 2311 Public authorities should make equitable provision for those who for reasons of conscience refuse to bear arms; these are nonetheless obliged to serve the human community in some other way.

> 2313 Non-combatants, wounded soldiers, and prisoners must be respected and treated humanely.
Actions deliberately contrary to the law of nations and to its universal principles are crimes, as are the orders that command such actions. Blind obedience does not suffice to excuse those who carry them out. Thus the extermination of a people, nation, or ethnic minority must be condemned as a mortal sin. One is morally bound to resist orders that command genocide.

>>18643571
What about killing civilians in war? Do you faggots think armies just square up at the 'ol fightin' field and duel it out? Because the vast majority of casualties in a war are almost always civilian.

Bombing population centers is a common acceptable tactic and that always kills noncombatants.

>>18643321
I could ask you the same question, Christcuck

>>18643704
>He thinks warring parties actually abide by shit like the Geneva convention

Lmao

>>18643721
Modern warfare tactics are obviously irrelevant here. Yes, killing civilians is bad, and not all wars are just wars. In fact, most of them are not.

>>18643700
Jesus represented a new Law and moral code. Also his veneration of old leaders/prophets does not mean he accepted them or their actions wholesale. Again, there is no evidence of Jesus advocating war or violence.
>killing is fine when done in a just war
>a just war
Name one

>>18643777
>>a just war
The Crusades.

>>18643777
>a new Law and moral code.
He didn't, he says so himself. He has come to fulfill the law, not to destroy it. God cannot change His mind, this would be illogical.

>>18640234
>>18640542
>>18640555
genuinely confused how someone comes to be this retarded. are you born like this or does it have to do with nutrition or are you making an attempt??

>>18640132
how tf did this OP abt suicide get derailed into a war/murder/christians r meenies deb8??

>>18643735
he literally btfo you subhuman. nice cope btw

>>18643440
keep seething troon

>>18643318
>>18643420
The Jews of Masada, during the Roman Siege of Masada, all killed themselves (women and children first) to avoid their slaughter and enslavement by the Romans. Also during Rome's rule, there was a story of someone who I believe is now regarded as a saint in which they were sentenced to death by gladiatorial combat, yet managed to kill themselves before the match in a bathroom of sorts. I tell of these two because at least from what I've heard, they are not regarded as sins or the 'wrong thing' to do. Whether or not these are actually in accordance with Christianity or forgivable by the Lord, I wouldn't know.

>>18644646
For men who think they are layered and complex, they sure do have a one-dimensional view of taking life
kek

>>18640234
Religion is evolved throughout history as rule set that communities structured themselves around. Murder is bad because it weakens the tribe, war is good because it strengthens the tribe (if you win), not for any arbitrary moral reason.