Am I wrong? Not all life is equal, and those who by blood are the soldiers of our enemies are unworthy of life because their existence is a threat to ours.
Lots of people have different standards for what an enemy combatant is, some say it's only someone actively engaged in militant activity, others will say fight age men from other groups who should engage in such activity, others include the women and the children as well. What's wrong with counting the unborn as well?
What are you basing that on? It’s my understanding that the Jerusalem Church was effectively a communist society (which is why it eventually faded into obscurity while Rome, who took a 10% tithe from everyone, persists to this day)
Christian communism was based on the concept of koinonia, which means common or shared life, which was not an economic doctrine but an expression of agape love.[5] It was the voluntary sharing of goods amongst the community.[6] Acts 4:35 records that in the early Christian Church in Jerusalem "[n]o one claimed that any of their possessions was their own, but shared everything in common."
Was it some (relatively) recent proclamation by the RCC or something?
Ah, found this:
Yes, according to the Catholic Church, any Catholic who professes the tenets of atheistic communism commits a sin and is subject to excommunication, as defined by the Decree Against Communism issued in 1949 by the Holy Office and Pope Pius XII.
Interesting, in the same document they start with:
A theory that makes profit the exclusive norm and ultimate end of economic activity is morally unacceptable. The disordered desire for money cannot but produce perverse effects. It is one of the causes of the many conflicts which disturb the social order.
In one case a life has not even been given a chance.
In the other case, someone has committed a heinous enough crime to forfeit their life.
Comparing the two is only something a secular relativist would do, as the Bible makes clear distinctions about NOT killing kids versus administrating capital punishment unto evil doers.
The famous "Eye for an eye" passage in the OT is in a chapter about laws regarding things like abortion & capital punishment.
(Paraphrasing) If a bull escapes & kills a man, the bull will be put to death. (& sold with the money given to the family?) If the owner ransoms the bull & pays the price, then the bull can live. But if it escapes again, and kills again? Both the bull AND the owner will be put to death.
That's some thinking we could use today, eh? If a judge lets a murderer walk...
Also if anyone conspires to end a pregnancy, they're getting the death penalty too.
“Eye for an eye” describes a straight forward exchange between two parties. “Makes the whole world blind” never, ever made any sense whatsoever. When I buy a candy bar for $2, does the whole world get half a candy bar and $1?
I haven't heard it referred to like that since my University days! 😺
In the same part of the OT it also discusses that if a slave owner accidentally puts out his slave's eye? The slave must go free. There's teeth mentioned in there too, I haven't read it for years now :>
But the "life for a life" part is both about the bull's owner AND about abortion too.
"It would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck, and he were thrown into the sea, than that he should offend one of these little ones."
Luke 17:2
Looks like Jesus has zero problem with the death penalty.
That was a warning of the sufferings of eternal darnation, not an endorsement of capital punishment. He was saying that the punishments of hell are so awful that the experience of being killed is preferable.
The one time Jesus did speak in regards to a death penalty, he said "those without sin cast the first stone."
That’s false, Jesus repeatedly debated scripture and not once did he say the NUMEROUS killings in the Hebrew Bible were sinful. Defensive killings has always been justified in the Bible, same with killing to maintain your country. The ONE time Jesus stopped a stoning was of an adulteress, not of a murderer or other heinous crimes.
Jesus came to fulfill the word of God. The killings in the old testament occurred within the old covenant. One doesn't judge post-Christ perfect morality with examples of the old ways. As an additional example, He said divorce had been allowed to the Hebrews because they were "hard of heart", while the Catholic Church doesn't recognize divorce today.
Yes. I'm against abortion but I don't think I ever called myself pro life. That's the language of boomercons, reddit retards, and I guess Catholics? Inb4 a Catholic comes along to tell me their pope is being misquoted here.
"pro life" is the language of my enemy. It's a meaningless label which requires you to accept all the strings that come attached just to use it, like "infidel" or "goy".
I’m not even anti-abortion. If a rapist puts a baby in my daughter, you’d better believe I’m supporting any decision to abort it. I’m not going to flush my bloodline down the toilet and see a half-monster baby destroy my daughter’s life just to appease the cucked and pozzed church.
This is just proof that he is a Leftist through and through.
Its their classic language trapping semantics, trying to get you stumbling over words trying to find a way to say how its different without relying on the obvious self-evidence of it. Its pure debate club nonsense where if you don't have an instant snap back, you lose and must now say they are in the right.
Its extremely obvious what the difference is, but explaining it requires some nuance and a paragraph while his argument is "it says life right there, but you are trying to kill" so he can fire it off in front of a crowd to get them going OOOOOO and call that a victory.
Catholic bishops can’t even be bothered with scripture so I’m not surprised. The catechism from the 80s actually demands countries take on Gods curse of disobedience.
Who says I'm hiding it? I'm very open with hating Christians and their judeo cuckery. And with a pope like this, who blessed blocks of ice in the name of climate change, it's not changing anytime soon
“Oh so you’re fine with violent murderers and rapists being executed but not when we kill innocent babies? Checkmate, hypocrite.”
The first redditor pope
Most of those babies are future criminals and foreign soldiers, they aren't innocent.
Are you mentally ill?
Am I wrong? Not all life is equal, and those who by blood are the soldiers of our enemies are unworthy of life because their existence is a threat to ours.
Lots of people have different standards for what an enemy combatant is, some say it's only someone actively engaged in militant activity, others will say fight age men from other groups who should engage in such activity, others include the women and the children as well. What's wrong with counting the unborn as well?
They have to be considered ‘people’ first to have to consider whether they are enemy combatants or feral animals.
Pope Leo is a borderline retard.
You mean "satanic"
He's a literal Communist.
Communism is a literal sin in the Church.
Communism is literally Satanic.
Which is why the Church opposes it
What makes you think the Pope is Catholic?
Does a bear shit in the woods?
What are you basing that on? It’s my understanding that the Jerusalem Church was effectively a communist society (which is why it eventually faded into obscurity while Rome, who took a 10% tithe from everyone, persists to this day)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_communism
Was it some (relatively) recent proclamation by the RCC or something?
Ah, found this:
Roman Catholic Catechism 2424
Interesting, in the same document they start with:
Seemingly also rejecting (hyper-) capitalism
You could say he's a Leo-tard.
Leotardo
Intellectually dishonest false equivalence.
In one case a life has not even been given a chance.
In the other case, someone has committed a heinous enough crime to forfeit their life.
Comparing the two is only something a secular relativist would do, as the Bible makes clear distinctions about NOT killing kids versus administrating capital punishment unto evil doers.
I said I’m pro life, I never said I was anti death.
Should maybe reframe it as pro birth? Just spitballing here
The famous "Eye for an eye" passage in the OT is in a chapter about laws regarding things like abortion & capital punishment.
(Paraphrasing) If a bull escapes & kills a man, the bull will be put to death. (& sold with the money given to the family?) If the owner ransoms the bull & pays the price, then the bull can live. But if it escapes again, and kills again? Both the bull AND the owner will be put to death.
That's some thinking we could use today, eh? If a judge lets a murderer walk...
Also if anyone conspires to end a pregnancy, they're getting the death penalty too.
Me at eight years old: "Wow, that's harsh! That's terrible!!! I'm glad I wasn't alive back then!"
Me today: "They were very generous to not do it the first time the bull killed someone."
“Eye for an eye” describes a straight forward exchange between two parties. “Makes the whole world blind” never, ever made any sense whatsoever. When I buy a candy bar for $2, does the whole world get half a candy bar and $1?
"We can't just stop taking eyes! That's not an option. You just need to learn to live with eye-gougers going unpunished."
I haven't heard it referred to like that since my University days! 😺
In the same part of the OT it also discusses that if a slave owner accidentally puts out his slave's eye? The slave must go free. There's teeth mentioned in there too, I haven't read it for years now :>
But the "life for a life" part is both about the bull's owner AND about abortion too.
If someone takes an eye, take their life as a warning to other evil doers.
-me, 2025
Juries are retarded. Just because a court says something happened does not mean it is true.
"It would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck, and he were thrown into the sea, than that he should offend one of these little ones."
Luke 17:2
Looks like Jesus has zero problem with the death penalty.
That was a warning of the sufferings of eternal darnation, not an endorsement of capital punishment. He was saying that the punishments of hell are so awful that the experience of being killed is preferable.
The one time Jesus did speak in regards to a death penalty, he said "those without sin cast the first stone."
That’s false, Jesus repeatedly debated scripture and not once did he say the NUMEROUS killings in the Hebrew Bible were sinful. Defensive killings has always been justified in the Bible, same with killing to maintain your country. The ONE time Jesus stopped a stoning was of an adulteress, not of a murderer or other heinous crimes.
He said "let he who is without sin cast the first stone." I think it's pretty clear what He meant.
Jesus came to fulfill the word of God. The killings in the old testament occurred within the old covenant. One doesn't judge post-Christ perfect morality with examples of the old ways. As an additional example, He said divorce had been allowed to the Hebrews because they were "hard of heart", while the Catholic Church doesn't recognize divorce today.
This is hilariously false. Where did Jesus ever once say that? Where did he ever once say killing was never justified?
I haven't claimed that he said no kill is ever justified. Read this comment thread again.
And he's a fake Catholic, installed by his fake Catholic predecessor.
I am Catholic, but we are not the same, Pope
Why would I get my morals from the pope?
Yup, another epoP trying to destroy the Catholic Church.
I'm not ''pro-life'' then.
I am very-much against letting murderers and child-rapists live, and very much in favor of innocent babies living.
Yes. I'm against abortion but I don't think I ever called myself pro life. That's the language of boomercons, reddit retards, and I guess Catholics? Inb4 a Catholic comes along to tell me their pope is being misquoted here.
"pro life" is the language of my enemy. It's a meaningless label which requires you to accept all the strings that come attached just to use it, like "infidel" or "goy".
Great, I don't care, because I'm not a poll tested milquetoast politician or a Fox News commentator.
I’m not even anti-abortion. If a rapist puts a baby in my daughter, you’d better believe I’m supporting any decision to abort it. I’m not going to flush my bloodline down the toilet and see a half-monster baby destroy my daughter’s life just to appease the cucked and pozzed church.
This is just proof that he is a Leftist through and through.
Its their classic language trapping semantics, trying to get you stumbling over words trying to find a way to say how its different without relying on the obvious self-evidence of it. Its pure debate club nonsense where if you don't have an instant snap back, you lose and must now say they are in the right.
Its extremely obvious what the difference is, but explaining it requires some nuance and a paragraph while his argument is "it says life right there, but you are trying to kill" so he can fire it off in front of a crowd to get them going OOOOOO and call that a victory.
Am I pro-life if I think popes should be aborted?
Well, yeah. Catholicism has been against the death penalty for as long as I've been alive.
Catholic bishops can’t even be bothered with scripture so I’m not surprised. The catechism from the 80s actually demands countries take on Gods curse of disobedience.
Can you elaborate? What you wrote sounds... interpreted.
No it’s blatantly true. The catechism says countries MUST accept mass immigration.
Does it? That's doesn't sound believable.
Pro life is an American political slogan.
It's global.
The death penalty is for murders, so yes I am still pro life
He thinks Christianity stops white people from collectivising. As if pagan Europe was all united in some Whiteness party.
Who says I'm hiding it? I'm very open with hating Christians and their judeo cuckery. And with a pope like this, who blessed blocks of ice in the name of climate change, it's not changing anytime soon
He's from Chicago.
I'm not antiabortion, I'm antichoice.
Even if his logic was correct how would that justify giving an award to someone who is pro-abortion?
He can justify not giving an award to a politician that is pro-life but in favor of the death penalty.
This just makes no sense.
I'm so glad I'm not a Catholic and don't have to deal with this crap.
Vatican 2 gonna Vatican 2.