"Someone who defends his life is not guilty of murder even if he is forced to deal his aggressor a lethal blow...Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others. The defense of the common good requires that an unjust aggressor be rendered unable to cause harm. For this reason, those who legitimately hold authority also have the right to use arms to repel aggressors against the civil community entrusted to their responsibility.... Assuming that the guilty party's identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor." (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2264-2265, 2267)
Catholics divided
Discussion in 'Free-For-All Archives' started by Acts 1:8, Mar 6, 2003.
Page 2 of 2
-
Your name, 'Baptist Pope' is an apt one. You have 'wandered off' from the orthodox/apostolic faith. But it's not too late to come-back to the sheepfold. -
(edited out because the ex cathedra chair malfunctioned)
[ April 06, 2003, 03:50 PM: Message edited by: The Baptist Pope ] -
ya know your right. I tell ya what.. I'll go buy some indulgences, say a few prayers to some dead people to get a few strings pulled, go confess my sins to a child molester sitting in a booth next to an idolic statue of mary and Everything will be ok.
Sorry, I'm not buying it. -
John 16:13
But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come.
Romans 8:9
You, however, are controlled not by the sinful nature but by the Spirit, if the Spirit of God lives in you. And if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Christ.
Do you get it? -
2 Peter 3:16
He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.
Isn't it just amazing, I can understand that too! -
Problem #2: You are equating something to protestantism that is true of catholics without acknowledging that fact.
I'll explain below.
Catholics quite often claim that the non-catholics are self determining Christians. All of us non-catholics decide for ourselves what is right and wrong because we do not have a pope to tell us what is right or wrong. Therein lies the problem, the pope can only tell you so much, thereby making catholics self determining christians as well.
For arguments sake, lets take the cursing topic. What is a curse word? It has been pointed out that the only clear reference to cursing (other than Lords Name cursing) is in Colossians 3:8. Though, it is vague. What is 'filthy communication' or 'filty words'? Where is the Pope's infallible list of dirty words that all catholics can't say? If the pope or the catholic church (infallibly) does not produce such a list, then each and every catholic HAS to decide for him/herself what is considered a dirty word, thereby making it wrong to say that word. That was just a simple example...but it is a valid argument and shows the inconsistency of the catholic position.
As a side note, if an infallible position is inconsistent, it is invalid. Why? Because inconsistency is contradictory; contradictory shows a discrepant nature; disgrepancies need correcting; needing correcting means not correct; not correct, even just once, disproves the claim to infallibility.
For instance, I cannot say that sex is bad because of the number of people having premarital sex. I must prove that sex is bad. So, you have to prove that the bible does not interpret itself by showing scripture. Also, you must prove that there is indeed a link between the belief that the bible interprets itself and the number of protestant denominations. If you do not demonstrate this link, you cannot use it as you have no proof to justify your claim.
What you are using is a common causal fallacy known as Joint Effect (not to mention.
jason -
Pay close attention to paragraphs four and five.
Page 2 of 2