What is Reddit's opinion of The Early Church on Killing: A Comprehensive Sourcebook on War, Abortion, and Capital Punishment?

From 3.5 billion Reddit comments

Not sure about articles about the Bible, but this book goes through excerpts from patriotic sources before Augustine (effectively ante-Nicene) on war, killing, and abortion.

https://www.amazon.com/Early-Church-Killing-Comprehensive-Sourcebook/dp/0801036305

The first 300 years or so. They were of the opinion it was wrong for Christians to watch the state murder anyone lest they “pollute themselves with the guilt of murder.” Cyprian is quoted as saying that when the state kills it is considered virtuous but when the individual does it is a vice.

It needs to be noted that the earliest Church teaching historically was that killing humans was always wrong, up until around Constantine's time, when Augustine formulated the nonsense known as "Just War Theory" (an oxymoron, though if correctly applied, still in practice strict enough to demonstrate the wrongness of any modern war I can think of).

I don't have space to fully justify this (and in fairness, need to read the actual book rather than second hand summaries), though will note that Ron Sider's review of early church literature http://bakerpublishinggroup.com/books/the-early-church-on-killing/288640 seems to prove my point; https://calumsblog.com/2014/02/21/the-early-church-on-killing-and-capital-punishment/ is a write-up based on a different book that I think worth reading as well.

To address an argument that is sometimes offered in response, namely that the prohibitions on joining the military were due to idolotary rather than pacifism, I think we should see the two things as in many ways fundamentally the same thing. After all, the gospel teaches (among other things) that we should imitate Christ, who willingly died so others might live, whereas the military works on the presumption that others should unwillingly die* so that we might live, and I view as far from unreasonable think milliarism is about obviously in contradiction to the gospel as possible.

And just to drive the nail in a bit further, worth noting that the supply chains used in uranium mining for nuclear weapons result in child deaths (due to unsafe labour conditions) while the history of their design involved a lot of human experimentation- particularly targeted against marginalised groups, such as first nations peoples or those with disabilities. I don't think it at all unreasonable to compare nukes to Old Testament descriptions of human sacrifice to idols; supply chains remaining a problem even for non-nuclear weapons. Or said another way, militarism is idolotary, and seeing as Costa Rica other than some militarised police has been very well off compared to it's neighbours and hasn't had one since the early 50s; there just isn't any evidence that a military is good- they're if anything killing us due to all the fossil fuel emissions from them (US military emits more greenhouse gases than wealthy Sweden).

*I know that there is the argument that we should use a military to deter conflicts and stop genocides. I'll offer a fuller response in follow-up comments if somebody wants to challenge my arguments; but at the very least, I don't think it's permissible for a Christian to kill in war or even self-defense- loving your enemy that most certainly is not.

I have an unconventional take on this one. I think she's correct that the church in terms of politics did genuinely get more permissive towards abortion (partly because the dominant hypothesis was that ensoulment started at 40 days or so) around 1100 or so, but that it also coincided with the church tossing out the earliest complete anti killing teaching more so than purely just war theory (see e.g https://www.amazon.com/Early-Church-Killing-Comprehensive-Sourcebook/dp/0801036305/ref=sr_1_7?dchild=1&qid=1630359670&refinements=p_27%3ARonald+J.+Sider&s=books&sr=1-7&text=Ronald+J.+Sider for one reference). So by her argument she's actually implicitly defending the crusades- which is perhaps not the best line to take? Not that I don't think that mainline Democrat politicans are aynthing but immperialist warmongers, but think her argument is genuinely bad- which I would inevitably as a consistent life advocate think.