But you don't have to be a prophet to be part of prophecy fulfillment, right?

Therefore it could be argued that Mohammad was instrumental in making the house of Ishmael a "wild donkey of a man, his hand against everyone and everyone's hand against him" and "a nation of the son of the slave woman also".

It seems that the lineage of Ishmael to contemporary Arabs is unverified (maybe unverifiable?).

Though I suppose if we're saying he was a charlatan, than we ought not lend any weight to his claims of Arab descendance from Ishmael either.

Islam certainly fits the prophetic framework of Ishmael though.

@KGSM Lutherans have both the small and large cathechism (I know I can’t spell, but I’m disappointed in spell check.).

As they’re translations of those written by Martin Luther, I’m guessing most denominations can use them.

A renewal of the Catholic versus Protestant discussion (not debate)...

The cover of my Catholic Catechism refers readers to paragraph 2267, which addresses the Catholic position on the death penalty, and Pope Francis' revision of it.

The Catholic position is one of 100% intolerance. Prior to Francis' revision it was one 99.99999% intolerance.

The Lutheran Catechism defers authority on the matter to... worldly authorities, which we are to respect. We are also to pray for them, for wisdom and conviction.

The Protestant position on the matter is one with biblical support, in both the old and new covenants (via commentary by Paul, not Christ). The Catholic one is seemingly rested solely on Jesus' "love directive".

The OT has no shortage of capital punishment. Paul seems to discuss it in Romans 13:1-7.

Do the Catholics over-apply the love? Do they inject it where it's not meant to be? Do other denominations do the same, in regards to things like LGBTQ issues, etc?

How broad is the "love brush"? How much can we rightfully paint with it?

It can be a weird spot...

Q: What did Jesus say about ___________?
A: Well, he didn't address it directly, but he did say to love. He said to love a lot. Like, ALL the love.

A) Christ did not interfere in the execution of others, for crimes - except adultery, TMK.

B) I understand taking away the ability of a lost soul to find God is an issue, as is taking away the gift of life, when not necessary for immediate defense of self and property. (Freedom is also a gift from God, and deprivation of property is enslavement.)

C) There is also the matter of bringing peace to the victims/there are some people who cannot safely be held in a prison.

To have to share a cell with a Dalmer, is cruel and unusual. To have to guard him, is cruel. To isolate a person from all human interaction is guaranteed to drive anyone insane.


There are…. Things in human form, who do their best to bring hell to Earth.


I am not certain how to codify it, exactly, but they exude cruelty, in many fashions, and I do not think any human should have to interact with them, in any fashion. They do not deserve the right to continue their predation.

The Chuch has always held that the death penalty is a valid right of the state when necessary to protect the people.

Bergoglio and his merry band of leftists, using the excuse of further clarification and a better understanding, have attempted to change what the Magesterium has taught for 2000 years. This serves only to confuse the laity.

When you mentioned that you had picked up a copy of the Catechism, I was hoping for you not to have gotten the Bergoglio version as this very thought came to mind. You might pick up a copy of the JP2 version, or, better yet, The Baltimore Catechism which states:

"A human life may lawfully be taken:
(1) In self-defense, when we are unjustly attacked and have no other means of saving our own lives; 2. (2) In a just war, when the safety or rights of the nation require it; 3. (3). By the lawful execution of a criminal, fairly tried and found guilty of a crime punishable by death when the preservation of law and order and the good of the community require such execution."

Isn't there only one Catholic Catechism? How could there be more than one?

More than one Protestant Catechism? Sure.

From the previous paragraph 2267: “Today, in fact, given the means at the State's disposal to effectively repress crime by rendering inoffensive the one who has committed it, without depriving him definitively of the possibility of redeeming himself, cases of absolute necessity for suppression of the offender ‘today ... are very rare, if not practically non-existent.’"

Emphasis my own. Point being that the Catholic Church has had an aggressive stance on the issue before Francis' absolute stance.

quote:

Originally posted by KSGM:
Isn't there only one Catholic Catechism? How could there be more than one?

I should have used the term edition rather than version, I suppose.

I don't have a copy of the newest catechism, so I can't look at the whole thing in context, but the Catholic Answers website has some pretty good articles on the subject.

This one explains it in detail, but is a bit confusing as I stated.. In its summation, though, it states that "The underlying moral principles have not changed, but, in Pope Francis' judgement, society has changed in a way that requires a different application of them."

In a sense, he just muddied up the waters. The one thing he was good at. It is also, in my opinion, and example of modernism which Pope Pius X called a heresy. Not the first from Bergoglio.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Gustofer,

quote:

Originally posted by KSGM:

From the previous paragraph 2267: “Today, in fact, given the means at the State's disposal to effectively repress crime by rendering inoffensive the one who has committed it, without depriving him definitively of the possibility of redeeming himself, cases of absolute necessity for suppression of the offender ‘today ... are very rare, if not practically non-existent.’"

Emphasis my own. Point being that the Catholic Church has had an aggressive stance on the issue before Francis' absolute stance.

Someone needs to have the Pope spend about 10 minutes - maybe more, with a process predator.

(I know they’re far more rare than Hollywood depicts. An acquaintance was a defense attorney. 20+ years of pretty much only taking capital cases, and he only had one process predator. Scared the heck out of everyone.)