Haven't I seen you defend The Crusades in the past?
I don't think so, I don't think I ever talk about the Crusades. Would you like me to defend them? I'll use the same argument that St. Thomas Aquinas uses in his just war theory.
Thomas Aquinas is exactly what I'm alluding to.
What does the Angelic Doctor say about war? That it's a necessary evil in some situations provided that a bunch of pretexts are met.
There may be some circumstances under which one of your children needs to kill the other one. As their father, you're never going to bless that killing regardless of how warranted or rational it may be. You're always going to lament the fact that things got the level where killing was necessary, and argue that literally everything should be done to avoid it.
1 Samuel 15:3: "Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have; do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass".
Quote:
Dueteronomy 28: 48-52 48therefore shalt thou serve thine enemies which the LORD shall send against thee, in hunger, and in thirst, and in nakedness, and in want of all things: and he shall put a yoke of iron upon thy neck, until he have destroyed thee.
49The LORD shall bring a nation against thee from far, from the end of the earth, as the eagle flieth; a nation whose tongue thou shalt not understand;
50a nation of fierce countenance, which shall not regard the person of the old, nor shew favour to the young:
51and he shall eat the fruit of thy cattle, and the fruit of thy ground, until thou be destroyed: which also shall not leave thee corn, wine, or oil, the increase of thy kine, or the young of thy flock, until he have caused thee to perish.
52And he shall besiege thee in all thy gates, until thy high and fenced walls come down, wherein thou trustedst, throughout all thy land: and he shall besiege thee in all thy gates throughout all thy land, which the LORD thy God hath given thee.
1 Samuel 15:3: "Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have; do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass".
Quote:
Dueteronomy 28: 48-52 48therefore shalt thou serve thine enemies which the LORD shall send against thee, in hunger, and in thirst, and in nakedness, and in want of all things: and he shall put a yoke of iron upon thy neck, until he have destroyed thee.
49The LORD shall bring a nation against thee from far, from the end of the earth, as the eagle flieth; a nation whose tongue thou shalt not understand;
50a nation of fierce countenance, which shall not regard the person of the old, nor shew favour to the young:
51and he shall eat the fruit of thy cattle, and the fruit of thy ground, until thou be destroyed: which also shall not leave thee corn, wine, or oil, the increase of thy kine, or the young of thy flock, until he have caused thee to perish.
52And he shall besiege thee in all thy gates, until thy high and fenced walls come down, wherein thou trustedst, throughout all thy land: and he shall besiege thee in all thy gates throughout all thy land, which the LORD thy God hath given thee.
I'm so old I can remember the outrage when Pope Paul spoke out against the Vietnam war. I think it's just something Popes do when it comes to wars in general. On a side note, my brown wife commented not long ago that the Spanish masses had been smaller, and the Iglesia de Christo down the road has been a ghost town.
The Pope is always going to be against war. God will never bless a war (post Christ) because a blessing implies that God's will is being done. While our gift of free will allows us to do virtually whatever we want, and there are some wars that are "just", the fact that circumstances have dictated that wars have to be fought places them outside of God's will.
You are in no position to say what God would or wouldn't bless.
God explicitly states that at least some wars are a part of his will in the Bible. I'll leave it up to Him on what he does and doesn't bless,.
I thought the entire point of Protestantism is that I'm the one who gets to decide what God does?
Can you show me where God blesses War post resurrection?
God's nature does not change. Jesus himself said that he did not come to bring peace on this earth.
That's only because change implies imperfection which is not God, that's not saying God behaves the same way in all contexts.
Jesus is literally called the Prince of Peace, he's not some sort of Muad D'ib esque warlord. This is just reiterating that his followers will have to take up their cross and follow him, that the way of the Christian is not easy.
"Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I have not come to bring peace, but a sword."
Peace comes in spirit between God and the individual, not in geopolitics. Another misinterpretation of scripture.
I'm so old I can remember the outrage when Pope Paul spoke out against the Vietnam war. I think it's just something Popes do when it comes to wars in general. On a side note, my brown wife commented not long ago that the Spanish masses had been smaller, and the Iglesia de Christo down the road has been a ghost town.
The Pope is always going to be against war. God will never bless a war (post Christ) because a blessing implies that God's will is being done. While our gift of free will allows us to do virtually whatever we want, and there are some wars that are "just", the fact that circumstances have dictated that wars have to be fought places them outside of God's will.
You are in no position to say what God would or wouldn't bless.
God explicitly states that at least some wars are a part of his will in the Bible. I'll leave it up to Him on what he does and doesn't bless,.
I thought the entire point of Protestantism is that I'm the one who gets to decide what God does?
Can you show me where God blesses War post resurrection?
God's nature does not change. Jesus himself said that he did not come to bring peace on this earth.
That's only because change implies imperfection which is not God, that's not saying God behaves the same way in all contexts.
Jesus is literally called the Prince of Peace, he's not some sort of Muad D'ib esque warlord. This is just reiterating that his followers will have to take up their cross and follow him, that the way of the Christian is not easy.
"Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I have not come to bring peace, but a sword."
Peace comes in spirit between God and the individual, not in geopolitics. Another misinterpretation of scripture.
It also comes to Earth, which is why the prophecies mention swords beaten into plowshares and lions laying down with lambs, children playing over asps's nest, etc etc.
Christ is the fulfillment of Isaiah, when we recite the Lord's prayer, we pray " thy will be done on Earth as it is in heaven". This peace is not just internal, it's the unification of Augustine's "City of God", Heaven and Earth becoming one.
It's not brought in by Man... God is the only one capable of that. You cannot have peace between righteous and unrighteous. Thinking we are told to have peace with the unrighteous just for the sake of peace is not bringing about the Kingdom of God. That's nonsensical.
It's not brought in by Man... God is the only one capable of that. You cannot have peace between righteous and unrighteous. Thinking we are told to have peace with the unrighteous just for the sake of peace is not bringing about the Kingdom of God. That's nonsensical.
Paul says "no one is righteous". Explain what you're saying in plain english, we have a biblical mandate to go out and slay the unjust?
If Mexico and Latin America were LDS Mormons and coming across the border to push Catholics out of their churches, neighborhoods and schools, these hypocrites would be demanding a Border Wall of Babel reaching all the way to heaven
I'm not arguing that Jesus is for this war, I am arguing against your assertion that it is a requirement as Christians to always be peaceful in this world as directed by Christ. That is not supported by Scripture. There is a time for peace and there is a time for war.
I'm not arguing that Jesus is for this war, I am arguing against your assertion that it is a requirement as Christians to always be peaceful in this world as directed by Christ. That is not supported by Scripture. There is a time for peace and there is a time for war.
I don't think Christ is for literally any war, if all of creation is his children, how could you be in favor of any of your children killing the other?
I'm sure he understands that some of it has to happen, but none of it is his will, rather a chain of events caused by human will.
I'm not arguing that Jesus is for this war, I am arguing against your assertion that it is a requirement as Christians to always be peaceful in this world as directed by Christ. That is not supported by Scripture. There is a time for peace and there is a time for war.
I don't think Christ is for literally any war, if all of creation is his children, how could you be in favor of any of your children killing the other?
I'm sure he understands that some of it has to happen, but none of it is his will, rather a chain of events caused by human will.
That's some feel good stuff that sounds nice that you have right there... but not supported by scripture.
I'm not arguing that Jesus is for this war, I am arguing against your assertion that it is a requirement as Christians to always be peaceful in this world as directed by Christ. That is not supported by Scripture. There is a time for peace and there is a time for war.
I don't think Christ is for literally any war, if all of creation is his children, how could you be in favor of any of your children killing the other?
I'm sure he understands that some of it has to happen, but none of it is his will, rather a chain of events caused by human will.
That's some feel good stuff that sounds nice that you have right there... but not supported by scripture.
Ok, which scripture says that Christ tolerates his children killing the other?
I thought the entire point of Protestantism is that I'm the one who gets to decide what God does?
Are you confused? You're the one following what a man says.
No, I'm not confused, I understand why my example was wrong. What I don't understand is why a Protestant is telling I'm not allowed to use my own interpretation to support my opinion.
I'm not arguing that Jesus is for this war, I am arguing against your assertion that it is a requirement as Christians to always be peaceful in this world as directed by Christ. That is not supported by Scripture. There is a time for peace and there is a time for war.
I don't think Christ is for literally any war, if all of creation is his children, how could you be in favor of any of your children killing the other?
I'm sure he understands that some of it has to happen, but none of it is his will, rather a chain of events caused by human will.
That's some feel good stuff that sounds nice that you have right there... but not supported by scripture.
Ok, which scripture says that Christ tolerates his children killing the other?
He didn't specify, He intentionally did not deal with politics or countries. He also never called everyone His children. God did, however, direct for the utter destruction of cities and cultures down to the killing of the livestock, at the point of a sword. That's not exactly the outlawing of "His children killing each other", whatever that is supposed to mean. Jesus never outlawed war, or violence... "If you don't have a sword, sell your coat and buy one"
I'm not arguing that Jesus is for this war, I am arguing against your assertion that it is a requirement as Christians to always be peaceful in this world as directed by Christ. That is not supported by Scripture. There is a time for peace and there is a time for war.
I don't think Christ is for literally any war, if all of creation is his children, how could you be in favor of any of your children killing the other?
I'm sure he understands that some of it has to happen, but none of it is his will, rather a chain of events caused by human will.
That's some feel good stuff that sounds nice that you have right there... but not supported by scripture.
Ok, which scripture says that Christ tolerates his children killing the other?
He didn't specify, He intentionally did not deal with politics or countries. He also never called everyone His children. God did, however, direct for the utter destruction of cities and cultures down to the killing of the livestock, at the point of a sword. That's not exactly the outlawing of "His children killing each other", whatever that is supposed to mean. Jesus never outlawed war, or violence... "If you don't have a sword, sell your coat and buy one"
Of course he didn't specify, God, who created everyone IN HIS IMAGE makes the sun rise and the rain fall on the evil and good alike.
Jesus needed his crowd to be armed so as to fulfill the prophecy in Isaiah, that's why when the number of swords is mentioned, a mere two, he says "it is enough".
At the first sign of violence he tells Peter to put away his sword, and admonishes him that those who live by the sword die by the sword, then heals the wound called by the sword. He also gives himself up to death, despite being able to call legions of angels to defend him.
Gods action with David/Goliath/Amalekites/Egyptian plagues etc etc, occurred before the incarnation. The God of the old tesatement is the same God in the New Testaement, but the circumstances have changed. Christ has come to repair the wound caused by Adam and Eve. Christ fulfills the rules of the Old.
As a practicing Catholic my frustration with the church is the same with every organization.
Apply the rules and principles universally.
Pope Leo has an obligation to promote peace between nations. I support that. He also had a major obligation to call out the mass slaughter of protestors in Iran and call on the nations of the world to step in and stop it. But he was silent on this.
The church loves to turn its "snide comments" and rebukes to the US for anything we have ever done with the exception of giving away our treasures to the rest of the world. And when we do this it is always "you could do more".
As a Christian whatever my political beliefs are on illegal immigration, taxes, or war is irrelevant to my actions. By that I mean if someone shows up at my door needing food, I feed them, if they need clothes I give it to them, if they need shelter I find them some. I don't need to ask them where they are from or what they believe. I know some will disagree but that's my view.
I'm not arguing that Jesus is for this war, I am arguing against your assertion that it is a requirement as Christians to always be peaceful in this world as directed by Christ. That is not supported by Scripture. There is a time for peace and there is a time for war.
I don't think Christ is for literally any war, if all of creation is his children, how could you be in favor of any of your children killing the other?
I'm sure he understands that some of it has to happen, but none of it is his will, rather a chain of events caused by human will.
That's some feel good stuff that sounds nice that you have right there... but not supported by scripture.
Ok, which scripture says that Christ tolerates his children killing the other?
He didn't specify, He intentionally did not deal with politics or countries. He also never called everyone His children. God did, however, direct for the utter destruction of cities and cultures down to the killing of the livestock, at the point of a sword. That's not exactly the outlawing of "His children killing each other", whatever that is supposed to mean. Jesus never outlawed war, or violence... "If you don't have a sword, sell your coat and buy one"
Of course he didn't specify, God, who created everyone IN HIS IMAGE makes the sun rise and the rain fall on the evil and good alike.
Jesus needed his crowd to be armed so as to fulfill the prophecy in Isaiah, that's why when the number of swords is mentioned, a mere two, he says "it is enough".
At the first sign of violence he tells Peter to put away his sword, and admonishes him that those who live by the sword die by the sword, then heals the wound called by the sword. He also gives himself up to death, despite being able to call legions of angels to defend him.
Gods action with David/Goliath/Amalekites/Egyptian plagues etc etc, occurred before the incarnation. The God of the old tesatement is the same God in the New Testaement, but the circumstances have changed. Christ has come to repair the wound caused by Adam and Eve. Christ fulfills the rules of the Old.
Quote:
To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven: A time to be born, and a time to die; a time to plant, and a time to pluck up that which is planted; A time to kill, and a time to heal; a time to break down, and a time to build up;
Quote:
Think not that I am come to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill
Those who live by the sword do often die by the sword, and Peter's purpose was not in the sword. He had other work to do as an individual. If swords were not supposed to be used, the prophesy wouldn't have included the need for them. You are reading your own desire for earthly peace in where it is expressly said that we will not have it and where Jesus expressly said he did not come to give.
Concerning the RCC, the vast amount of Americans, whether they be RCC or Protestant based Christians have little clue as to who are the real power brokers behind this pope and version of the RCC.
The Jesuit order "the society of Jesus" aka the black pope, has been ruling the RCC for quite a while now.
Francis was a Jesuit from South America. This new pope Leo is Augustinian but heavily influenced by the Jesuit order and he has dual citizenship, from Peru.- again South American connection.
He took his name Leo from Leo XIII. Who was the trained under a Jesuit that coined the entire term, 'Social Justice' and using T Aquinas, justifies the poor stealing from the rich.The RCC was totally behind this mass immigration under Biden - a RCC. They were getting massive funds from USAID>
As I said the vast majority of RCC have no clue about the insidious nature of the Jesuit order.
Georgetown University is their headquarters here in the US. So many judges, politicians, bureaucrats come out of there, it is entirely a Jesuit recruiting and training ground, -- Bill Clinton, and many many, of the globalist world order come through the Jesuit universities, but especially Georgetown They are totally behind the conquer through mass immigration doctrine,
You can here about that a bit here:
Also for those who want to know the deep and dark history of the Jesuit, especially here in the US, there is a fully source documentary, very well done:
Concerning the RCC, the vast amount of Americans, whether they be RCC or Protestant based Christians have little clue as to who are the real power brokers behind this pope and version of the RCC.
The Jesuit order "the society of Jesus" aka the black pope, has been ruling the RCC for quite a while now.
Francis was a Jesuit from South America. This new pope Leo is Augustinian but heavily influenced by the Jesuit order and he has dual citizenship, from Peru.- again South American connection.
He took his name Leo from Leo XIII. Who was the trained under a Jesuit that coined the entire term, 'Social Justice' and using T Aquinas, justifies the poor stealing from the rich.The RCC was totally behind this mass immigration under Biden - a RCC. They were getting massive funds from USAID>
As I said the vast majority of RCC have no clue about the insidious nature of the Jesuit order.
Georgetown University is their headquarters here in the US. So many judges, politicians, bureaucrats come out of there, it is entirely a Jesuit recruiting and training ground, -- Bill Clinton, and many many, of the globalist world order come through the Jesuit universities, but especially Georgetown They are totally behind the conquer through mass immigration doctrine,
You can here about that a bit here:
Also for those who want to know the deep and dark history of the Jesuit, especially here in the US, there is a fully source documentary, very well done:
This is tinfoil Alex Jones level stuff. Pope Leo XIII's treatise on Catholic Social teaching and the duties of labor and capital was a direct refutation of Marxism and Communism.
Verbatim: " the socialists, working on the poor man's envy of the rich, are striving to do away with private property, and contend that individual possessions should become the common property of all, to be administered by the State or by municipal bodies"
In this same encyclical he confirms the natural right of private property as being necessary to the good of the family, which all of society is built on, and that inequality, rather than being something that can be done away with, is inimical with the human condition and capacity, talent and fortune are natural, and that working to destroy inequality is societally destructive.
edited to add: Yes, the Jesuits are very gay now. No argument there.
"No one has said that the United States should have open borders. I think every country has a right to determine who and how and when people enter," Pope Leo XIV said November 18 outside the papal villa of Castel Gandolfo before returning to Rome after a daylong stay there.
So now St Ignatius of Loyola was gay? Or he just wanted to found a secretly gay religious order hundreds of years before the USA was a thing in order to influence American politics?
"No one has said that the United States should have open borders. I think every country has a right to determine who and how and when people enter," Pope Leo XIV said November 18 outside the papal villa of Castel Gandolfo before returning to Rome after a daylong stay there.
The biggest haters of the Catholic church are Christian Zionists. Why doesn't anyone admonish the Christian Zionists for advocating for war? Promoting war is the exact opposite of what Christianity is all about - it is not Christian at all. They also advocate for Churches to accrue billions of dollars in assets, again not Christian.
"No one has said that the United States should have open borders. I think every country has a right to determine who and how and when people enter," Pope Leo XIV said November 18 outside the papal villa of Castel Gandolfo before returning to Rome after a daylong stay there.
The biggest haters of the Catholic church are Christian Zionists. Why doesn't anyone admonish the Christian Zionists for advocating for war? Promoting war is the exact opposite of what Christianity is all about - it is not Christian at all. They also advocate for Churches to accrue billions of dollars in assets, again not Christian.
Here is the history of social justice and Pope Leo XIII.
Notice that it specifically mentions that the owner ship of private property is ok, TO A POINT. However, if that property you have is NEEDED then it can be taken.
