In the next method of proving, we will consider (scholastically) the arguments of those who are in favor of war and do not consider killing in a holy defensive war a sin, but on the contrary – a great good deed, great love, and we will show that even at the level of scholasticism (comparing verbal forms and quotes), they are wrong, and their arguments are unfounded fantasies and irrelevancies.
P.S. We wrote this method of proving (as well as partly the previous, second method) in a very scholastic manner (of course for your sake): we cited some quotes, tried at least schematically to trace certain trends in the evolution of church consciousness regarding the raised questions-problems, and based on this tracing and the laws of elementary logic made some conclusions (by the way, the conclusions in the third method of proving were left by the author to the reader! – finish the proof yourself, it is easy to do, because we have already proved this theorem in two (three, considering that in the second method there are two sub-methods) ways!). We said (in the second part) that a historian, archaeologist (any earthly scientist who deals with phenomena, the letter, the fruits of reality, and not with the cause – Hypostasis, Spirit) is not an authority for a theologian (God-seer by the Holy Spirit). A theologian (spirit-bearer-God-seer, Christian) does not need quotes and references, and if he resorts to scholastic techniques (comparing and quoting verbal forms and references to them), it is only for the sake of the weakness of those with whom he communicates, to whom he preaches the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the advent of the Kingdom of God! The theologian does not rely on the past and does not draw any conclusions from it about the present, and does not make predictions based on the past and present about the future. Not at all. The God-seer takes his arguments from eternity (the realm of Truth – hypostatic being in the Holy Spirit), and not from space and time (energetic forms of the realm of being: decay and death), which only point to the essence (Hypostasis). The Spirit creates forms for itself and is free regarding forms (for example, the content of a word does not depend on the form of the word (verbal form) – it can be conveyed by different words (cultural forms of communication)). Therefore, bear with our scholasticism. Because even in it we stand above the laws of scholasticism. Therefore, do not judge us strictly for our poor scholasticism. I wanted to say a few words to you in a language that I know very poorly (because I do not communicate in it), in a foreign language (of this age), so do not look at the form and “unscientificity”, but listen to the essence – what I want to tell you with awkward, clumsy language (driven by love and the impossibility of not speaking)! Do not say that I cited few quotes (from the father’s notebooks), did not provide exact coordinates (book, publisher, year, page, etc.). I leave this “important” work (comparing verbal forms and quotes) to you – to whom it is needed, for whom it is important! Therefore, bear with us being so “proud” – free regarding the testimonies of the written letter, because we, for example, in the third method, already knew the result in advance (because we had already proved the theorem, and this proof was preceded by a revelation – the most reliable testimony of the Holy Spirit), and therefore behaved so freely with historical material (“facts” and “letters”).
Method IV. In this method of proving our theorem-testimony, we will try to refute the main arguments-accusations of militant opponents (who claim that a Christian, a member of the Church, can and must kill enemies-occupiers-oppressors in a holy liberation and righteous defensive war), which I have had to hear. Now (as in the previous methods of proving), we will again pretend that we do not know that the Holy Scripture is an icon (it is a window into the hypostatic world of integrity and catholic being in Divine Love; therefore, each fragment of the icon is alive only in the context of the icon, and outside this context – it is a dead detail, form, letter), not a collection of quotes, in which each quote is self-sufficient. In the Scripture of the Church, each quote-word is an icon-call to partake in Divine Life in the Eucharist, in the Sacrament of the Church, which lives by the Holy Spirit, the Life of the Holy Trinity, not material for rational processing and deriving rational conclusions, which again are addressed to the intellect and archives of memory (not for repentance and changing the way of existence – from egoistic, biological existence (= thinking rationally) to church, hypostatic, Eucharistic life (= being heartily, hypostatically)) – a continuous whirl in the realm of reason, empty verbal forms, without the content of personal (hypostatic) knowledge of reality.”
But let us speak the language of the audience, although it would be better to immediately reach (at least a minimal) level of apophatic theology (see Part I), which we will try to do in the second part of this book. This method will be structured as a discussion: the arguments of the opponents and our refutations of these arguments with a positive response-explanation of the essence of the facts that are incorrectly and inappropriately presented to us.