Trying to infect Christians with masochistic tendencies to submit to any foreign master and slavery and to love their worst enemies - "pacifists" refer to the Gospel recommendation "love your enemies, do good to those who hate you" (Lk. 6, 27). and Mt. 5, 44). If such a recommendation were to be adopted according to the interpretation of "pacifists", Christians would really be forced to love not only everyone, including criminal enemies, but also Satan for the sake of religious zeal.

The "pacifist" interpretation of the stated principle can overshadow and confuse only the completely ignorant, thanks to the impoverishment of European languages, which, at this end of the millenary process of generation, designate all types of hostility with only one name, forced to express their differences with additional descriptions. The ancient Greek and Latin languages ​​denote two basic types of enmity differently: personal and public, that is, political. In the ancient Greek and Latin versions, the mentioned gospel recommendation calls believers to love only their personal but not public, political enemies; diligite inimicos vestros, άγαπατε τοος έχΘρούς όμών and not diligite hostes vestros

Carl Schmitt, considering the essence of politics, which rests on the criteria and powers of distinguishing between friends and enemies, ironically but accurately observes: "In the millenary struggle between Christianity and Islam, not a single Christian thought that for the sake of love for the Saracens or the Turks he would leave Europe to Islam instead of defending her. Enemy, in the political sense of that term, does not imply personal hatred, and only in the sphere of private life does it make sense to love one's enemy, i.e. opponent."

A similar distinction between personal (inimicos) and public (hostes) enemies is made by Blessed Augustine in his polemic against Faustum. Expanding on John the Baptist's instructions to soldiers (Lk. 3, 14), blessed Augustine points out that their duty requires them to overcome their personal interests and fight against threats and injuries that target and endanger the public they serve. A soldier must not use his weapons and skills to respond to personal injuries, that is, against a personal enemy (inimicos).

Many recommendations of Jesus Christ cannot be properly understood without understanding the historical context. For example, the weakening of the Old Testament principle of retribution according to the formula "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth" and a call to believers not to oppose evil, target Jewish rebellion and call for respect for the pax romana. Therefore, we are not talking about every evil, but about one special, contingent and relative one, which Jesus Christ certainly assessed as tolerable, wisely realizing that rebellions would cause much greater and worse evils. At the time of those sermons, the Roman Empire was a well-established, highly developed and exemplary political reality of harmony and synergy of many ethical and religious diversities.

In addition to the presented political sense, the aforementioned recommendation also contains a moral dimension where the best state of mind is highlighted, above personal and other people's passions. After all, direct life experience teaches us that the serenity of an injured spirit, which does not retaliate against attacks, is often the best defense that tames the anger and hatred of the opponent.

It is also necessary to bear in mind the metaphorical meaning of many Gospel recommendations, which therefore does not allow for literal readings and appropriate, down-to-earth interpretations. Admittedly, the tendency towards literal readings and interpretations is an integral, albeit heterodox, part of the history of the reflection of Christian teaching, which bears witness only to the weaknesses and limitations of the human element, but it must be admitted that the Church knew how to tame and correct them. A good example of confronting such weaknesses and limitations was provided by the blessed Augustine in the mentioned writing, on the occasion of the evangelical call to respond to an opponent's blow on the right cheek by turning to them the other cheek also. (Mt. 5, 39).

Once and for all, with the kind of simplicity that characterizes wisdom, blessed Augustine resolves all the doubts that the said recommendation may cause by pointing out that it does not refer to the body but to the spirit. So, here too, we are talking about moral discipline that does not respond to the challenges of hatred with hatred but with the sublimity of a sovereign and unshakable spirit.

If, on the other hand, by force of some absurdity, the presented Gospel recommendations should be read and understood literally and not as metaphors of higher orders of reality, then some other and apparently "opposite" recommendations from the Gospel would hurt the eyes as incomprehensible contradictions. A good example of such "contradiction" is the invitation to believers to buy daggers even at the cost of selling their last possessions: "And he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one." (Lk. 22, 36).

Taken from the journal of students of the Faculty of Theology, Logos God. 5, no. 1-2/1995 Excerpt from Dragoš Kalajić's text "Pacifism against Christianity"