Login Register

All times are UTC - 5 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic Page 2 of 2   [ 32 posts ]   Go to page Previous  1, 2
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Aug 30, 2005 10:40 am 
Offline
Board Administrator
Board Administrator
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 06, 2003 12:38 pm
Posts: 9415
Location: Detroit
Religion: Catholic
swaglantern wrote:
The same means we have today could have been employed in savage times....but obviously they were too intellectually small to comprehend such solutions.


Things like the printing press had not been invented, neither was their large scale literacy, so proper Apologetics was not possible.


Quote:
It's ok to murder someone who doesn't subscribe to the same notions you do?? So to use a modern day example.....It was ok for the mujahadeen in Iraq to behead the "infidels"....I mean they are claiming the same as you...YOU ARE A HERETIC TO THEM......so it's ok then?......kill everybody.....neat!!!


No, if you re-read my premise, my notions are unimportant, it is what is truthful to God that is important. My personal truth is meaningless, as I have none; but when one teaches against Objective Truth, then one puts the souls of others in danger.

In addition, how I am perceived by Muslims is unimportant, because they cannot validly accuse me of heresy as I have not willfully taught against Objective Truth. Actions based on their personal misconceptions to not, by any means, constitute Justice.


Deut 13

Quote:
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm - I've heard so many many christian claims of "context"...and "anthropomorhism".....maybe I should use the argument against you.....maybe this is an anthropomorphic passage...yea....hehehe - besides this passage means absolutely nothing to me. I just solidifies the "human" nature of God.


You have never heard those claims from me, so why use them in a discussion with me. Do you personally subscribe to the concept of 'scriptural anthropomorhism'?

If you are also to claim a contextual reading, what is your analysis of the context of Deut 13?

Here is the text, if your Bible isn't handy

NIV
KJV





Quote:
Can God command an immoral act?


Philosophically....you could argue that your God is not a moral enitity.[/quote]

I am presenting the commands of the God who authored Deuteronomy. That is my God, yes.

Is it your premise that the God who authored Deuteronomy is not an Moral being? I would be willing to discuss that in a separate thread?



Quote:
A God pointed out, a murder only kills his subjects body, a heretic destroys their soul.


Great....so to prevent people from destroying themselves.................we'll destroy them. .....that has to be bad logic.[/quote]

Not themselves, to prevent them from destroying others. God commanded the towns of heretics to be razed to prevent the destruction of the souls around them, to prevent the spread of their false message and leading others away from the Truth.

Heretics, by definition, preach a false Gospel. The preaching of a heretic imperils the soul of those they deceive with their false message.

As I mentioned above, the Church has many more means at it's disposal to counter those who would spread such a false message (including, in some small way, this board and others like it).

So it no longer has to resort to the extreme measures it had in the past.

_________________
-----------------------------------------------

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Aug 30, 2005 12:23 pm 
Offline
**********
**********

Joined: Tue Aug 09, 2005 12:10 pm
Posts: 857
Sounds like the church made up their own definition of heretic to help support there murderous ways. My dictionary defines heretic as:

A person who holds controversial opinions, especially one who publicly dissents from the officially accepted dogma of the Roman Catholic Church.

I don't think I need to define dissent.....where does it say they are teaching or converting anyone???? ......who flipping cares if they are??? If your religion and faith are so weak that you have to start killing people in order to stave off any differences of opinion then you are mixed up in some "bad stuff" my friend....

_________________
And now I see the face of God, and I raise this God over the earth, this God whom men have sought since men came into being, this God who will grant them joy and peace and pride.
This God, this one word:

"I."

Ayn Rand, Anthem


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Aug 30, 2005 1:13 pm 
Offline
Board Administrator
Board Administrator
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 06, 2003 12:38 pm
Posts: 9415
Location: Detroit
Religion: Catholic
Here is Websters, and it's not that different from the Church's (other than the Catholic Church's defintion includes the other 21 Churches that make up the Catholic Church, not just the Roman Church. ;) )

Quote:
Main Entry: her·e·tic
Pronunciation: 'her-&-"tik
Function: noun
1 : a dissenter from established church dogma; especially : a baptized member of the Roman Catholic Church who disavows a revealed truth


If someone disavows that which has been revealed as truth, that would be an adherence to falsehood correct? A premise is either True or False. If P is True the (Not P) is False.

_________________
-----------------------------------------------

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Aug 30, 2005 1:21 pm 
Offline
**********
**********

Joined: Tue Aug 09, 2005 12:10 pm
Posts: 857
you just typed the same thing I did?....answer the post

_________________
And now I see the face of God, and I raise this God over the earth, this God whom men have sought since men came into being, this God who will grant them joy and peace and pride.
This God, this one word:

"I."

Ayn Rand, Anthem


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Aug 30, 2005 1:26 pm 
Offline
Board Administrator
Board Administrator
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 06, 2003 12:38 pm
Posts: 9415
Location: Detroit
Religion: Catholic
swaglantern wrote:
you just typed the same thing I did?....answer the post


There are quite a number of differences between what we posted. Your defintion did not refer to a disavowal of truth.

It only refered to 'controversy'.

As to your specific question, heresy involves a public statement (teaching) that a revealed truth is not, in fact, true.

_________________
-----------------------------------------------

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Aug 30, 2005 1:45 pm 
Offline
**********
**********

Joined: Tue Aug 09, 2005 12:10 pm
Posts: 857
So off with their heads eh??......oh well - we will not agree on this one..
I hope you change your views someday.

Brendan wrote:
swaglantern wrote:
you just typed the same thing I did?....answer the post


There are quite a number of differences between what we posted. Your defintion did not refer to a disavowal of truth.

It only refered to 'controversy'.

As to your specific question, heresy involves a public statement (teaching) that a revealed truth is not, in fact, true.

_________________
And now I see the face of God, and I raise this God over the earth, this God whom men have sought since men came into being, this God who will grant them joy and peace and pride.
This God, this one word:

"I."

Ayn Rand, Anthem


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Aug 30, 2005 7:51 pm 
Offline
Master
Master
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 11:47 am
Posts: 3917
Location: A state capital on a salt creek.
Religion: None
Well, I'm against the death penalty in america because it is not nessessary for justice or to protect society in general. in short there is no justifiable cause.

_________________
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur
Tu ne cede malis
Vincit omnia veritas


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Aug 30, 2005 8:34 pm 
Offline
Resident Philosopher
Resident Philosopher
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 27, 2004 6:28 pm
Posts: 11079
Location: Playing Guitar for Siggy's Choir...
Religion: Catholic
Church Affiliations: 2nd Deg. KoC, SSFJDOG
swaglantern wrote:
So off with their heads eh??......oh well - we will not agree on this one..
I hope you change your views someday.

Brendan wrote:
swaglantern wrote:
you just typed the same thing I did?....answer the post


There are quite a number of differences between what we posted. Your defintion did not refer to a disavowal of truth.

It only refered to 'controversy'.

As to your specific question, heresy involves a public statement (teaching) that a revealed truth is not, in fact, true.


Swag... as far as my red v blue state comment, I was responding to a question about which states probably have a MORE moral (relative term) application of the death penalty. Since blue states probably have a better track record of criminal rights legistation, and since being "wrongly convicted" is the number one concern about the death penalty, then the blue states probably have a better track record than red states where the death penalty can be much more political and more vengeful.

I think the best comment so far come in the post just above mine... In America, where Catholic moral law is the farthest thing from public policy, the death penalty in the hands of the government is like matches in the hands of a 2 year old. Matches are not morally evil, but they are to be used by those who know what they are for. A secular government with no regard for human life should not be dealing with the death penalty. That said, however, I don't think it is right to outlaw it, since it is a natural right of the State to have the ability should the need arise. But, serious education and direction needs to be given to the public and our elected officials about the true application of it.

FJ


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Aug 31, 2005 7:42 am 
Offline
**********
**********

Joined: Tue Aug 09, 2005 12:10 pm
Posts: 857
Quote:
.A secular government with no regard for human life should not be dealing with the death penalty. That said, however, I don't think it is right to outlaw it, since it is a natural right of the State to have the ability should the need arise.


hmmm..... - let's say the government doesn't possess the qualities "that you feel" it does..........give me an example of how the state sanctioned killing of another human being for a crime - truly, and objectively benefits society as a whole.

_________________
And now I see the face of God, and I raise this God over the earth, this God whom men have sought since men came into being, this God who will grant them joy and peace and pride.
This God, this one word:

"I."

Ayn Rand, Anthem


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Sep 10, 2005 10:56 pm 
Offline
Sons of Thunder
Sons of Thunder
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 30, 2003 7:06 pm
Posts: 3020
Location: Boise, Idaho
Custos wrote:

Catechism of the Catholic Church wrote:
Today however, as a result of steady improvements in the organization of the penal system, such cases are very rare, if not practically non-existent.


If you look at the statistics for the US, the use of the death penalty meets this criteria.

_________________
"You seek me", St. Augustine comments, "for the flesh, not for the spirit. How many seek Jesus for no other purpose than that He may do them good in this present life! [...] Scarcely ever is Jesus sought for Jesus' sake" (In Ioann. Evang, 25, 10).

“therefore is my people led away captive, because they have not knowledge … therefore hath hell enlarged her mouth without any bounds” (Is 5:13-14).

But he that shall persevere to the end, he shall be saved. (Mt 24:13)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Sep 12, 2005 10:23 am 
Offline
Inactive
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2005 1:18 am
Posts: 2103
Religion: Catholic
Church Affiliations: Lay Fraternity of St Dominic
mgross wrote:
Custos wrote:

Catechism of the Catholic Church wrote:
Today however, as a result of steady improvements in the organization of the penal system, such cases are very rare, if not practically non-existent.


If you look at the statistics for the US, the use of the death penalty meets this criteria.


I think thats pretty debatable.

_________________
+JMJDCC+
Bek

http://jmjdcc.blogspot.com


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Sep 12, 2005 10:31 am 
Offline
Resident Philosopher
Resident Philosopher
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 27, 2004 6:28 pm
Posts: 11079
Location: Playing Guitar for Siggy's Choir...
Religion: Catholic
Church Affiliations: 2nd Deg. KoC, SSFJDOG
aWorkInProgress wrote:
mgross wrote:
Custos wrote:

Catechism of the Catholic Church wrote:
Today however, as a result of steady improvements in the organization of the penal system, such cases are very rare, if not practically non-existent.


If you look at the statistics for the US, the use of the death penalty meets this criteria.


I think thats pretty debatable.


I think it is safe to say that it is wrong. Many States have not been silent about the intentions behind many of the uses of the death penalty in recent years. And revenge and easing the minds and hearts of the families tops the list... At least in the States I have lived in. If that is the State's intent, then I don't think the statistics would fit the catechism.

BJ

_________________
Ut est rabidus.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic Page 2 of 2   [ 32 posts ]   Go to page Previous  1, 2


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


Jump to: