.


Is this post a good example of a reason to "ban poche?"

Post

Quote from: poche

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.    

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.

Quote from: ServusSpiritusSancti

Quote from: Sigismund

Quote from: Lighthouse

Quote from: Maizar

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.

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

Wow, thanks for the link! I thought I had read that the Koine Greek was murder. I wonder why the poor translation became accepted.

Quote from: Traditional Guy 20

Quote from: poche

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...

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."