Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => General Discussion => Topic started by: Napoli on May 28, 2013, 02:03:30 PM
-
I have made the subject matter clear. He needs to go. There are plenty of liberal forums who would welcome you.
-
I haven't PM'd Matthew yet because I don't know how many others already have. I don't want to bombard him. I'd love to know poche's cuмulative thumbs-down total.
-
How do we Ignore?
-
How do we Ignore?
You just click "HIDE" on one of his posts and it will hide all of them. If you want to view one of his posts (why would anyone?), just click "VIEW," which will show all of his posts.
-
He's not very popular. I think everyone has dealt with him as charitably as is possible. Time for him to find more liberal pastures.
-
I see no reason for him to be banned. If you don't like his threads, don't read them.
-
(http://www.exclassics.com/foxe/foxe107.gif)
Must we prepare Poche's fire ?[/color]
-
Poche has the habits of a shill.
He posts ridiculous quantities. Shills do this so that lurkers see the post count and think that they're viewing the work of a 'regular.'
Obviously he has a NO agenda. It is right to first assume ignorance, and work to correct it. But Poche has been spoken to about traditional Catholicism more times than I care to count. He either can't or won't stop apologizing for the NO. His posts are not going to stop. If it satisfies users, I will provide evidence showing that he has been spoken to about this on many occasions.
Is he a shill? Who knows. But he certainly fits at least part of the description. And even if he isn't, he does not contribute to traditional Catholic discussion. And he does not make an effort to either.
-
And did killing heretics fix anything, apart from giving crowds of people the chance to sin mortally by gloating over the death of one they hate?
-
Poche has the habits of a shill.
He posts ridiculous quantities. Shills do this so that lurkers see the post count and think that they're viewing the work of a 'regular.'
Obviously he has a NO agenda. It is right to first assume ignorance, and work to correct it. But Poche has been spoken to about traditional Catholicism more times than I care to count. He either can't or won't stop apologizing for the NO. His posts are not going to stop. If it satisfies users, I will provide evidence showing that he has been spoken to about this on many occasions.
Is he a shill? Who knows. But he certainly fits at least part of the description. And even if he isn't, he does not contribute to traditional Catholic discussion. And he does not make an effort to either.
I'd say take this up with a moderator, whose task is to prevent mob rule in the first place.
-
Poche has the habits of a shill.
He posts ridiculous quantities. Shills do this so that lurkers see the post count and think that they're viewing the work of a 'regular.'
Obviously he has a NO agenda. It is right to first assume ignorance, and work to correct it. But Poche has been spoken to about traditional Catholicism more times than I care to count. He either can't or won't stop apologizing for the NO. His posts are not going to stop. If it satisfies users, I will provide evidence showing that he has been spoken to about this on many occasions.
Is he a shill? Who knows. But he certainly fits at least part of the description. And even if he isn't, he does not contribute to traditional Catholic discussion. And he does not make an effort to either.
I'd say take this up with a moderator, whose task is to prevent mob rule in the first place.
The moderator has been PM'd and there are threads with the title 'ban X' as requested. This way, when the moderator has a chance to review the issue, he can be made aware of important information that might affect his decision.
I would say an obstinacy in posting NO apologetics and patently boring garbage is relevant when considering whether or not to ban someone, don't you? :smile:
-
I would say an obstinacy in posting NO apologetics and patently boring garbage is relevant when considering whether or not to ban someone, don't you? :smile:
Maybe yes, but it's not my call. Why is he not yet banned? What does that tell you?
-
I would say an obstinacy in posting NO apologetics and patently boring garbage is relevant when considering whether or not to ban someone, don't you? :smile:
Maybe yes, but it's not my call. Why is he not yet banned? What does that tell you?
That the moderator isn't omniscient.
-
I would say an obstinacy in posting NO apologetics and patently boring garbage is relevant when considering whether or not to ban someone, don't you? :smile:
Maybe yes, but it's not my call. Why is he not yet banned? What does that tell you?
That the moderator isn't omniscient.
But if thy brother shall offend against thee, go, and rebuke him between thee and him alone. If he shall hear thee, thou shalt gain thy brother. And if he will not hear thee, take with thee one or two more: that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may stand. And if he will not hear them: tell the church. And if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican.
I take from this the principle that if you have a grievance, and Poche has not satisfied your grievance, then take it up with the relevant authority, escalating it until you get a decision. A PM can solve lack of omniscience if you are prepared to put a little work into it.
-
And did killing heretics fix anything, apart from giving crowds of people the chance to sin mortally by gloating over the death of one they hate?
Yes, after a while there were fewer heretics in town preaching the path to damnation. So, Maizar, you think the Holy Office engaged in unspeakable and sinful acts? And what liberal history book did you read this in?
And do you know for sure the crowds all gloated and hated. I suspect that most were praying their rosaries and repenting their own sins.
-
The moderator has been PM'd...
Really?? I think it's time to fire your secretary.
-
Isn't Poche the one who used to always post nothing but: :pray: ?
-
The moderator has been PM'd...
Really?? I think it's time to fire your secretary.
Well, when someone said they PMd the moderator, I assumed they were telling the truth!
-
I haven't read a lot of posts by Poche, so I suppose it's possible that he's said some awful things on this forum that I haven't read, but I don't see anybody quoting anything he's said that would be reasonable cause for banning him. Does Poche advocate heresy? Perhaps those seeking his ouster could post some examples of that, if that's the problem. Is he vicious, mean-spirited, and completely lacking in charity? That would be another good reason for banning in my mind. Examples, anybody? Or is it something else? I'm not saying he shouldn't be banned because I really don't know what the story with him is, but I think that if people are trying to whip up a lynch mob, it would only be fair to provided concrete examples of why they think a lynching is in order.
-
And did killing heretics fix anything, apart from giving crowds of people the chance to sin mortally by gloating over the death of one they hate?
Yes, after a while there were fewer heretics in town preaching the path to damnation. So, Maizar, you think the Holy Office engaged in unspeakable and sinful acts? And what liberal history book did you read this in?
And do you know for sure the crowds all gloated and hated. I suspect that most were praying their rosaries and repenting their own sins.
I know what Aquinas and many popes have taught about heretics and the justification of putting them to death (although some have condemned the practice), and I understand and agree with the reasoning behind the rule (it is better to not have lived than to have a life that leads a multitude to damnation). But on a practical level I don't agree with it because in many cases people were wrongfully put to death as heretics.
Aquinas:
But on the side of the Church is mercy which seeks the conversion of the wanderer, and She condemns him not at once, but after the first and second admonition, as the Apostle directs. Afterwards, however, if he is still stubborn, the Church takes care of the salvation of others by separating him from the Church through excommunication, and delivers him to the secular court to be removed from this world by death.
Putting a heretic to death is not a real solution to the problem of heresy which is an idea and not an individual. It backfires. We may as well make a list of several hundred million names of Christians who are heretics today, and go after them. Aquinas did far more good by debating and exposing his adversary than he would have done if he'd taken a gun and shot him.
-
The Church used to condemn heretics, and turn them over to the secular authorities for punishment -- up to and including capital punishment.
(Yes, I'm posting something here just so everyone can see I've been to this thread...)
-
Actually I have mixed feelings about members constantly crying and starting threads to have someone banned.
This is what we have a moderator for. PM him instead of dragging everyone to your opinion. We do have an ignore feature here, all you have to do is press the button.
I think I will take a long break from CathInfo.
-
I PM'd Mathew. I did so because of his request to inform him of certain kinds of activity.
The church has always stood up against heretics. Why would it stop?
-
There was an implication in one of the previous posts that the church was overzealous in pursuing heretics and perhaps it led to some uncharitable actions. I could not disagree more. Were the inquisition's wrong? Of course not! Actions by the church, in the past, are often presented by the modernists in a apologetic spin. I commend the church on its past actions. I think we need to continue in that same spirit here.
-
Actually I have mixed feelings about members constantly crying and starting threads to have someone banned.
This is what we have a moderator for. PM him instead of dragging everyone to your opinion. We do have an ignore feature here, all you have to do is press the button.
I think I will take a long break from CathInfo.
Make it a very short long break, MyrnaM.
-
. We do have an ignore feature here, all you have to do is press the button.
.
True. And I love it when you post here, Myrna.
-
I PM'd Mathew. I did so because of his request to inform him of certain kinds of activity.
The church has always stood up against heretics. Why would it stop?
This is a forum, not THE CHURCH! I admit there are times when someone should be banned, don't get me wrong. It is I think we should put our self in the place of others sometime. I know how I would feel if there was an entire thread about me that said: "Ban Myrna" That's all I am saying. I feel strongly your negative feelings about others should be a little more discrete.
Thanks for those who had something encouraging for my posts here on this forum. I appreciate it.
-
But on a practical level I don't agree with it because in many cases people were wrongfully put to death as heretics.
Interesting cleavage between the theoretical and the practical. When I see statements like this, I suspect the writer of having too much immersion in public school education (the American kind) and Mel Brooks movies.
What does "many cases" mean to you? 6 people? 10%? 90%? If so, how would you ever prove it?
I know it's kind of "montypythonish" to think these things were big charades. Not funny. Really, not funny. A very serious matter.
Do you believe in capital punishment in secular cases?
-
And did killing heretics fix anything, apart from giving crowds of people the chance to sin mortally by gloating over the death of one they hate?
:applause:
-
And did killing heretics fix anything, apart from giving crowds of people the chance to sin mortally by gloating over the death of one they hate?
Yes, after a while there were fewer heretics in town preaching the path to damnation. So, Maizar, you think the Holy Office engaged in unspeakable and sinful acts? And what liberal history book did you read this in?
And do you know for sure the crowds all gloated and hated. I suspect that most were praying their rosaries and repenting their own sins.
Whether he does or not, I do.
I doubt that killing heretics has resulted in one genuine conversion.
-
Whether he does or not, I do.
I doubt that killing heretics has resulted in one genuine conversion.
So was Isabella of Spain just like Osama bin Laden when she kicked the Moors and the Jews out of Spain?
Yes in that she was not for religious tolerance, and no because Islam is barbaric and inferior to Christianity and Catholicism is the RIGHT religion and Islam is not.
Religious tolerance is a liberal idea.
-
Whether he does or not, I do.
I doubt that killing heretics has resulted in one genuine conversion.
So was Isabella of Spain just like Osama bin Laden when she kicked the Moors and the Jews out of Spain?
Yes in that she was not for religious tolerance, and no because Islam is barbaric and inferior to Christianity and Catholicism is the RIGHT religion and Islam is not.
Religious tolerance is a liberal idea.
Pretty much, yes.
You want religious tolerance from others, but can't manage it yourself. If you think it is okay for Catholics to kill people because their theology is wrong, you rally have no basis for complaint when Muslims (say) do it. They are every bit as sure of their righteousness as we are of ours.
-
And did killing heretics fix anything, apart from giving crowds of people the chance to sin mortally by gloating over the death of one they hate?
Yes, after a while there were fewer heretics in town preaching the path to damnation. So, Maizar, you think the Holy Office engaged in unspeakable and sinful acts? And what liberal history book did you read this in?
And do you know for sure the crowds all gloated and hated. I suspect that most were praying their rosaries and repenting their own sins.
Whether he does or not, I do.
I doubt that killing heretics has resulted in one genuine conversion.
You do realize that accusing the Holy Office of engaging in sinful acts is a serious accusation, right?
As far as I am aware, no proceeding Saint has ever taken issue with it.
-
And did killing heretics fix anything, apart from giving crowds of people the chance to sin mortally by gloating over the death of one they hate?
Yes, after a while there were fewer heretics in town preaching the path to damnation. So, Maizar, you think the Holy Office engaged in unspeakable and sinful acts? And what liberal history book did you read this in?
And do you know for sure the crowds all gloated and hated. I suspect that most were praying their rosaries and repenting their own sins.
Whether he does or not, I do.
I doubt that killing heretics has resulted in one genuine conversion.
You do realize that accusing the Holy Office of engaging in sinful acts is a serious accusation, right?
As far as I am aware, no proceeding Saint has ever taken issue with it.
Yes I do. Killing people is serious business.
What do you mean by "proceeding" saint?
-
You do realize that accusing the Holy Office of engaging in sinful acts is a serious accusation, right?
As far as I am aware, no proceeding Saint has ever taken issue with it.
Technically it was the Church sanctioning the civil government in punishing heretics, so the civil government was the one who was directly involved.
-
Yes I do. Killing people is serious business.
What do you mean by "proceeding" saint?
Then I guess war and the death penalty are immoral?
-
Pretty much, yes.
You want religious tolerance from others, but can't manage it yourself. If you think it is okay for Catholics to kill people because their theology is wrong, you rally have no basis for complaint when Muslims (say) do it. They are every bit as sure of their righteousness as we are of ours.
Yes but here's the point again:
Religious tolerance and diversity is a liberal idea. Liberalism is an evil ideology. Islam also thinks abortion, ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity, and pre-marital sex are immoral while our cultural elites celebrate those values.
Who is right on that cultural front?
-
.
True, that this isolates a key point of the source post:
But on a practical level I don't agree with it because in many cases people were wrongfully put to death as heretics.
Interesting cleavage between the theoretical and the practical. When I see statements like this, I suspect the writer of having too much immersion in public school education (the American kind) and Mel Brooks movies.
What does "many cases" mean to you? 6 people? 10%? 90%? If so, how would you ever prove it?
I know it's kind of "montypythonish" to think these things were big charades. Not funny. Really, not funny. A very serious matter.
Do you believe in capital punishment in secular cases?
..but what was the context, anyway?
And did killing heretics fix anything, apart from giving crowds of people the chance to sin mortally by gloating over the death of one they hate?
Yes, after a while there were fewer heretics in town preaching the path to damnation. So, Maizar, you think the Holy Office engaged in unspeakable and sinful acts? And what liberal history book did you read this in?
And do you know for sure the crowds all gloated and hated? I suspect that most were praying their rosaries and repenting their own sins.
I know what Aquinas and many popes have taught about heretics and the justification of putting them to death (although some have condemned the practice),
This is patently false. There has never been a pope in the history of the
Church who has "condemned the practice" of putting heretics to death.
You're spreading a lie. Maybe Maizar should be banned?? :surprised:
and I understand and agree with the reasoning behind the rule (it is better to not have lived than to have a life that leads a multitude to damnation). But on a practical level I don't agree with it because in many cases people were wrongfully put to death as heretics.
Aquinas:
But on the side of the Church is mercy which seeks the conversion of the wanderer, and She condemns him not at once, but after the first and second admonition, as the Apostle directs. Afterwards, however, if he is still stubborn, the Church takes care of the salvation of others by separating him from the Church through excommunication, and delivers him to the secular court to be removed from this world by death.
Putting a heretic to death is not a real solution to the problem of heresy which is an idea and not an individual. It backfires. We may as well make a list of several hundred million names of Christians who are heretics today, and go after them. Aquinas did far more good by debating and exposing his adversary than he would have done if he'd taken a gun and shot him.
The problem with heresy is, it spreads, like infection.
If putting a heretic to death isn't a real solution to the problem, then
neither is amputation a real solution to the problem of gangrene.
You could say that gangrene is an idea, not a region of rotten flesh.
So, by amputation of gangrenous limbs, you are not thereby destroying
the principle of gangrene, so it's what, a useless endeavor?
Now, by Maizar's (bad) logic, if the amputation of a gangrenous limb would
result in a few healthy cells getting cut off too, then the practice should
be discontinued. Or, in the worst case, if it ever once happens that a
patient's wrong limb is amputated, or if the wrong patient is operated on,
then from that point, nobody should ever have an operation ever again.
This is an outgrowth of the erroneous teaching of JPII whereby capital
punishment should be outlawed, since it's part of "the culture of death."
And then he turned around and demonstrated syncretism while he said
that "this is not syncretism." But even in this extremely deleterious case
of JPII's papacy, he did not "condemn capital punishment."
-
This is an outgrowth of the erroneous teaching of JPII whereby capital punishment should be outlawed, since it's part of "the culture of death."
Let me say this. The Pope and bishops were wrong since the death penalty comes out of the Old and New Testaments and Aquinas and Augustine, while being against the death penalty comes from Bentham and Enlightenment philosophers, who because of their atheism were fearful of death. Hell even the Vatican had the death penalty until the early 60's.
-
.
Is this post a good example of a reason to "ban poche?"
Post (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=24885&min=5#p0)
May his soul and the souls of all the faithful departed rest in peace. Amen.
And if so, then why .. because poche thinks that Fr. Andrew Greeley is
among the faithful departed?
-
The execution of heretics was not performed out of the Church seeking vengeance or satisfaction against those who were theologically 'at odds' with Her. Those who spread heresy are a direct danger and impediment to others salvation, especially when their heresy breeches the public sphere. It is out of concern for the faithful who would be scandalized or led astray by the heretics that heretics were executed. The health of the soul supersedes the health of the body.
-
If you are interested in some information on the inquisition here it is. It may interest you to learn that it wasn't what you have been told it is. The reality was very different than the hype.
Most of the myths surrounding the Inquisition have come to us wrapped in the cloak of the Spanish Inquisition. It is the world of Edgar Allen Poe’sThe Pit and the Pendulum, with vivid descriptions of burning heretics, ghastly engines of torture with innocent Bible-believers martyred for their faith. In many ways, the reality of the Spanish Inquisition has its own human tragedies, but it is not the tragedy presented in the common caricatures.
It is a curiosity of history that the medieval Inquisition of the 13th and 14thcenturies was little utilized in Spain. It was only after the mid-fifteenth century that the Spanish Inquisition would develop, and its target would not be heretics in any traditional sense, but rather those whose Jєωιѕн ancestors had converted to Christianity and were accused of secretly practicing their old faith. To many contemporary historians of the Spanish Inquisition, the story unfolds not as a “religious” persecution, but rather a racial pogrom.
Spain was unique in Western Europe for the diversity of its population. In addition to a large segment of Muslims, medieval Spain had the single largest Jєωιѕн community in the world, numbering some one hundred thousand souls in the 13th Century. For centuries Jews and Christians had lived and worked together in a more or less peaceful though generally segregated co-existence.
http://www.catholicleague.org/the-black-legend-the-inquisition/
-
Yes I do. Killing people is serious business.
What do you mean by "proceeding" saint?
Then I guess war and the death penalty are immoral?
Well, they are serious business.
But your point is well taken. I overstated my case. Killing people over religion, even when it is the True Catholic Faith, is wrong.
War is usually wrong. There have been few of them, I think, that could meet all of St. Thomas's criteria for a just war. I am not opposed to the death penalty in principle. People who murder other people should pay with their lives. I am also inclined to think rape and kidnapping sould be capital offenses, although American law does not.
-
.
Is this post a good example of a reason to "ban poche?"
Post (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=24885&min=5#p0)
May his soul and the souls of all the faithful departed rest in peace. Amen.
And if so, then why .. because poche thinks that Fr. Andrew Greeley is
among the faithful departed?
Oh for heaven's sake. It is a prayer that Catholics say for the dead. Please don't make more of things than is actually there.
-
I must say it has been an interesting experience to watch my rep points go up and down as people read my posts on this thread and a popular post on another thread. Sort of a rep point tug of war. :smile:
-
.
Is this post a good example of a reason to "ban poche?"
Post (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=24885&min=5#p0)
May his soul and the souls of all the faithful departed rest in peace. Amen.
And if so, then why .. because poche thinks that Fr. Andrew Greeley is
among the faithful departed?
I didn't agree with much of what Fr Greeley was about but now that he has died I ask that God be have mercy on his soul. We don't know what the judgments of God are. It may be that he is in Hell, but he could also be in Purgatory. I want God to be merciful to me and I ask Him to be merciful to all of those who have died.
-
Yes I do. Killing people is serious business.
What do you mean by "proceeding" saint?
Then I guess war and the death penalty are immoral?
Well, they are serious business.
But your point is well taken. I overstated my case. Killing people over religion, even when it is the True Catholic Faith, is wrong.
War is usually wrong. There have been few of them, I think, that could meet all of St. Thomas's criteria for a just war. I am not opposed to the death penalty in principle. People who murder other people should pay with their lives. I am also inclined to think rape and kidnapping sould be capital offenses, although American law does not.
The fifth commandment says "Thou shalt not kill."
-
The fifth commandment says "Thou shalt not kill."
That commandment is not meant for war (in terms of self-defense), the death penalty, or religious meanings.
Sorry to disappoint the pacifists here but Christianity was not meant to be a pacifist religion.
-
Isn't there a strong argument that the actual translation is "Thou shalt not murder?"
-
And did killing heretics fix anything, apart from giving crowds of people the chance to sin mortally by gloating over the death of one they hate?
Yes, after a while there were fewer heretics in town preaching the path to damnation. So, Maizar, you think the Holy Office engaged in unspeakable and sinful acts? And what liberal history book did you read this in?
And do you know for sure the crowds all gloated and hated. I suspect that most were praying their rosaries and repenting their own sins.
Whether he does or not, I do.
I doubt that killing heretics has resulted in one genuine conversion.
You do realize that accusing the Holy Office of engaging in sinful acts is a serious accusation, right?
As far as I am aware, no proceeding Saint has ever taken issue with it.
Yes I do. Killing people is serious business.
What do you mean by "proceeding" saint?
You probably agree with serial killers getting the death penalty.
A heretic is worse because he kills the soul. If murderers are to be killed then so should those spreading public heresy and leading souls astray.
I shouldn't have used the word "proceeding". I should have just said that none of the Saints have ever taken issue with it.
-
You may kill a heretic but you can never kill an idea. Many of the "modern" heretical ideas floating around are nothing more than rehashes of previous notions that were addressed and condemned in earliar councils.
-
Isn't there a strong argument that the actual translation is "Thou shalt not murder?"
I've heard this stated, but I don't have any references. I have some
books that should cover this but the curiously skip over it.
But a very strong answer in such cases comes from the Gospel, for
Our Lord certainly knew the mind of God. And when the woman was
caught in adultery, and the townspeople were going to stone her, what
did Jesus do, but write with his finger in the sand.
He did not say that the death penalty was a bad thing, or that nobody
should ever be executed -- in fact, it was by capital punishment that
He died on the Cross, and unjustly so. But He was not opposed to it
on principle. You know He could have been so opposed to it if He had
known that to be the truth. Therefore, the fact that he did not oppose
it answers the question. He died to uphold the truth.
Taken literally, "Thou shalt not kill" could mean you can't slaughter
animals, or that man was forbidden to sacrifice sheep, goats, oxen,
doves -- Our Lady and St. Joseph provided two doves for their
offering to the Temple priest at the Presentation of Our Lord, the 4th
Joyful Mystery of the Rosary. Were they breaking the 5th
Commandment, by supporting the killing of two doves?
It seems rather obvious that this was not a problem in previous ages,
but leave it to our "enlightened age" to make a problem where there
wasn't one before.
Anyone who has the responsibility of running a real farm knows that
sometimes you have to kill an animal. There is no crime in that. The
priests of the Old Dispensation did not take pleasure in the h0Ɩ0cαųst.
It was serious work, that had to be done to satisfy the justice of God.
So, while we may think that the word "murder" better fits the
sentence, the word "kill" has fit the sentence for a very long time
without any confusion resulting from it. The 5th Commandment could
say, "Thou shalt not kill unless it's in self-defense," but that hasn't
been necessary (for the Bible to include that) for everyone to know
that it's true.
Similarly, "4. Thou shalt honor thy father and thy mother," does not
mean that when they command you to sin you are still bound to obey
them. But where is that in the Bible? Etc.
-
For what it's worth, in the original Douay Old Testament of 1610 (prior to +Challoner's revisions which made the work sound more like the KJV), Exodus XX: 13 is translated as "Thou shalt not murder." Deuteronomy V: 17 is rendered exactly the same way.
You can check out the original Douay Rheims translation for free here: http://archive.org/details/1610A.d.DouayOldTestament1582A.d.RheimsNewTestament_176
-
For what it's worth, in the original Douay Old Testament of 1610 (prior to +Challoner's revisions which made the work sound more like the KJV), Exodus XX: 13 is translated as "Thou shalt not murder." Deuteronomy V: 17 is rendered exactly the same way.
You can check out the original Douay Rheims translation for free here: http://archive.org/details/1610A.d.DouayOldTestament1582A.d.RheimsNewTestament_176
Wow, thanks for the link! I thought I had read that the Koine Greek was murder. I wonder why the poor translation became accepted.
-
The fifth commandment says "Thou shalt not kill."
That commandment is not meant for war (in terms of self-defense), the death penalty, or religious meanings.
Sorry to disappoint the pacifists here but Christianity was not meant to be a pacifist religion.
The commandment prohibits, essentially, extra-judicial murder. The Old Law specifically allowed executions for many things, and no one has seen this as a contradiction historically.
-
The fifth commandment says "Thou shalt not kill."
That commandment is not meant for war (in terms of self-defense), the death penalty, or religious meanings.
Sorry to disappoint the pacifists here but Christianity was not meant to be a pacifist religion.
The commandment prohibits, essentially, extra-judicial murder. The Old Law specifically allowed executions for many things, and no one has seen this as a contradiction historically.
Except Poche...
-
Lol Mith!
:laugh2:
-
People like Poche never bother me. There obviousness is their handicap. If I wanted to infiltrate some group I would be more like Sigismund. Not that I think Sigismund is an infiltrator. I have no idea if he is or not. Simple curiosity could explain his presence here. But I would take that approach. Be gentlemanly and courteous to everyone, while seeking to spread error at every opportunity.
A good infiltrator will be indistinguishable from a "nice guy."
"Oh Sigismund may be wrong about some things, but he's such a nice guy that we don't mind having him around."