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, an 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.)

Christianity's stance on suicide.

In continuing to compare Catechisms as various topics become however timely in my life, I have now looked at suicide.

I know two men who have been deterred by their perception of Christianity's view on the matter. Both of their fathers took their own lives. Both of them had someone they knew to be a Christian tell them their fathers were condemned because of their actions.

The Catholic Catechism doesn't support this view of condemnation:

• “Everyone is responsible for his life before God who has given it to him. It is God who remains the sovereign Master of life. We are obliged to accept life gratefully and preserve it for his honor and the salvation of our souls. We are stewards, not owners, of the life God has entrusted to us. It is not ours to dispose of” (#2280).

• “Suicide contradicts the natural inclination of the human being to preserve and perpetuate his life. It is gravely contrary to the just love of self. It likewise offends love of neighbor because it unjustly breaks the ties of solidarity with family, nation, and other human societies to which we continue to have obligations. Suicide is contrary to love for the living God” (#2281).

• “If suicide is committed with the intention of setting an example, especially to the young, it also takes on the gravity of scandal. Voluntary co-operation in suicide is contrary to the moral law. Grave psychological disturbances, anguish, or grave fear of hardship, suffering, or torture can diminish the responsibility of the one committing suicide” (#2282).

“We should not despair of the eternal salvation of persons who have taken their own lives. By ways know to him alone, God can provide the opportunity for salutary repentance. The Church prays for people who have taken their own lives” (#2283). †

Luther's Catechism doesn't address suicide specifically, other than to mention it as something the devil will motivate us to do:

For since the devil is not only a liar, but also a murderer, he constantly seeks our life, and wreaks his anger whenever he can afflict our bodies with misfortune and harm. Hence it comes that he often breaks men's necks or drives them to insanity, drowns some, and incites many to commit suicide, and to many other terrible calamities. Therefore there is nothing for us to do upon earth but to pray against this arch enemy without ceasing.

Considering the two primary doctrinal references don't support a position of certain damnation, how has the idea been so prolific? My best guess is Dante's Divine Comedy. He implies all suicides are damned, and they're rather "deep" in hell as well.

What do y'all know or think about the matter?

quote:

Originally posted by KSGM:
What do y'all know or think about the matter?

Life isn’t a gift, it’s a curse for literally countless people. A few such as myself enjoy a reasonably pleasant few decades, but according to the dogma of more than one religion every one of us is faced with the possibility of ultimately suffering eternal torture for nothing more than holding the wrong beliefs that we gained from the accidents of our births and living our lives. How is that such a good deal?

If we don’t own and control our own lives, what do we own?

quote:

Originally posted by KSGM:
Christianity's stance on suicide.

...

I know two men who have been deterred by their perception of Christianity's view on the matter. Both of their fathers took their own lives. Both of them had someone they knew to be a Christian tell them their fathers were condemned because of their actions.

...

I do not have much to say with public discourse on theology (obviously I have just been reading along and not commenting in this thread). I tend to fall more into apologetics and not theology as I find things like the above to be what I call "weaponized theology"

We had lost a baby, and I was having a tough go of it, especially my wife. At a mens group this arrogant asshole proclaimed that yes, it was a baby with a soul and yes, I could find no comfort because baby was now in hell. He was also arguing that all children who are not 'saved' go to hell. The same for peoples and culture who have never heard the gospel. I was asked to leave the mens group because I refused to apologize for poking him in the chest (you know, that hard poke right on the sternum, so satisfying) and daring him to 'say it again'.

My point is, I find Christians (so called) often do the enemies work for them. Because we are first and foremost sinners. When my cousin (we are more brothers than cousins) came home from his 3rd tour, he was a Viking. I mean a literal worshipping Odin, pouring out holy water on trees in the park, Viking. My dad and I had lots of talks about whether he was still saved. A professor friend of mine (PhD in counseling type who works with a lot of vets) told me it was symptomatic, what he needed was love and dedication.

I remember one tough conversation not with my cousin, but a cult friend of his, and I told him, Blood is thicker than whatever 'this' is and He is my brother so you can step off. My cousin backed my play and asked his friend to back down.

Anyway, while my dad did not necessarily agree that my cousin was saved through all of this (even during his Viking days) he 'hoped and prayed' that I was right. Weaponized theology is often used to tell people that they or others will go to hell when I do not believe we actually get to make that decision. The dude on the Cross with Christ sure did not follow any known theological formula. But he made it.
Anyway, FWIW, my cousin is no longer a Viking, we are still close, and he is putting his life back together. one day at a time.

quote:

Originally posted by KSGM:

Considering the two primary doctrinal references don't support a position of certain damnation, how has the idea been so prolific? My best guess is Dante's Divine Comedy. He implies all suicides are damned, and they're rather "deep" in hell as well.

What do y'all know or think about the matter?

Prior to the mid 60s, the Catholic church did explicitly teach that suicide was a mortal and perhaps the only unforgiveable sin. That stance has softened since then, but it's been a slow evolution to the current state. Even in the 90s when I grew up in the church we were still taught it was a mortal sin.

I'd imagine that's where the condemnation came from, because the current view on suicide really only came about recently.

quote:

Originally posted by Gustofer:
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.

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."

Thanks, Gus.

From the Baltimore...

Q. 1274. What sin is it to destroy one's own life, or commit suicide, as this act is called?

A. It is a mortal sin to destroy one's own life or commit suicide, as this act is called, and persons who willfully and knowingly commit such an act die in a state of mortal sin and are deprived of Christian burial. It is also wrong to expose one's self unnecessarily to the danger of death by rash or foolhardy feats of daring.

It's worth noting that it does not make an explicit declaration of damnation.

The Baltimore's statement on the death penalty certainly draws from the Romans 13 verses that Luther cited.

quote:

Originally posted by redstone:


We had lost a baby, and I was having a tough go of it, especially my wife. At a mens group this arrogant asshole proclaimed that yes, it was a baby with a soul and yes, I could find no comfort because baby was now in hell. He was also arguing that all children who are not 'saved' go to hell. The same for peoples and culture who have never heard the gospel. I was asked to leave the mens group because I refused to apologize for poking him in the chest (you know, that hard poke right on the sternum, so satisfying) and daring him to 'say it again'.

He would have gotten way more than a firm poke in the chest had that been me.

Not a bit of what he said is even in the Bible

I swear a lot of "Christians" are our own worst enemies.

quote:

Originally posted by sigfreund:

quote:

Originally posted by KSGM:
What do y'all know or think about the matter?

If we don’t own and control our own lives, what do we own?

NOTE: This is fuzzy. I just thought of it, and I haven’t fully researched it in Scripture.

We own nothing. For we cannot even control the color of the hairs on our head.

The root of Christianity, is to look to God, in all things - as opposed to many demonic creeds, which say “look to yourself/look to hell/indulge dark impulses.”

When Scripture calls our bodies, temples, that’s quite a profound thing.

They are dwelling places for the Holy Spirit, belonging to Him.

quote:

Originally posted by PASig:

quote:

Originally posted by redstone:
... I refused to apologize for poking him in the chest (you know, that hard poke right on the sternum, so satisfying) and daring him to 'say it again'.

He would have gotten way more than a firm poke in the chest had that been me.

Not a bit of what he said is even in the Bible

I swear a lot of "Christians" are our own worst enemies.

It actually started with him saying that all aborted or lost babies are in Hell. I asked for clarification . . . and since I had already asked for prayer for my wife and I . . . it seemed obvious (I thought) I desired a retraction. But no.

anyway, in my 53 years I meet more people that are 'formally' or 'grew up' in etc. but are now atheist or agnostic. So yes, often I think we are our own worst enemy. I watch cousins (many have unfriended me) on Facebook constantly spreading . . . hate and misinformation. I point it out, and leave with, we should work to do better. But it does not seem to help.

If someone asks me if I am a Christian (*your one of those christians arent you) I always answer, no. If they act surprised, I say I do not know what you mean by 'christian'. If they pursue I tell them I am a believer . . . "A believer in what" . . "ah, now that is the right question"

redstone,

Your men's group guy may be shocked to one day find that it's HE who is going to Hell when he stands before Jesus at the Judgement

Jesus' words are EXACTLY for people like that:

Matthew 7:21-23


21 “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22 Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?’ 23 Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’

Two things:
Fasting
and
The divisions in the Catholic Church

I have coined a silly catch phrase for the second topic: "The 'Chism Schisms".

Fasting has much biblical support, and support in Catholic and Protestant doctrine as displayed in Catechisms. If you employ it, how and to what degree do you fast? What is your "method"? It seems, to me, that it is logical to combine fasting with an elevated degree of prayer, in pursuit of a particular concern; it could be anything from personal spiritual growth to the health or salvation of another.

In my ongoing investigations into various Catechisms, it seems there is a not insignificant amount of division within the Catholic Church. The Pius X Catechism, the Baltimore, the Trent, the John Paul II "Vatican II", etc. Each one seems to have it's dedicated followers who have considered it to be the point at which the Church was last "legitimate". Catholics can leverage denominational division and confusion against Protestants, while posturing the Catholic Church as more mature in its unification. But it seems there's no shortage of fractures within the Catholic Church.

Educate me, men.

quote:

Originally posted by redstone:

quote:

Originally posted by KSGM:
Christianity's stance on suicide.

...

I know two men who have been deterred by their perception of Christianity's view on the matter. Both of their fathers took their own lives. Both of them had someone they knew to be a Christian tell them their fathers were condemned because of their actions.

...

I do not have much to say with public discourse on theology (obviously I have just been reading along and not commenting in this thread). I tend to fall more into apologetics and not theology as I find things like the above to be what I call "weaponized theology"

We had lost a baby, and I was having a tough go of it, especially my wife. At a mens group this arrogant asshole proclaimed that yes, it was a baby with a soul and yes, I could find no comfort because baby was now in hell. He was also arguing that all children who are not 'saved' go to hell. The same for peoples and culture who have never heard the gospel. I was asked to leave the mens group because I refused to apologize for poking him in the chest (you know, that hard poke right on the sternum, so satisfying) and daring him to 'say it again'.

WTF??? I don't mind arrogant assholes as long as they know what they're talking about. Clearly, this arrogant asshole didn't know what he was talking about nor has he studied much of the Bible.

If he did, he would have come across the first son of King David. The baby was conceived in adultery between King David and Bathsheba. Because Bathsheba became pregnant, David had Bathsheba's husbandm, Uriah, a soldier in King David's army murdered. As punishment, King David had continual strife, he had incest in his family, he was embarassed before the world. And the baby, the son from adultery, died. But David was certain the baby would go to heaven.

After King David was told the baby had died, he stopped fasting and weeping for the baby. When asked why he stopped, he answered in 2 Samuel 12:22-23 "He answered, "While the child was still alive, I fasted and wept. I thought, "Who knows? The Lord may be gracious to me and let the child live.' But now that he is dead, why should I go on fasting? Can I bring him back again? I will go to him, but he will not return to me."

David was certain he was going to go to heaven because of his relationship with God. And he was also certain, the baby would go to heaven.

As for suicide, suicide is a sin. But Jesus' blood cleanses us from all sins, from the sins we have committed in the past to the sin we will commit in the future. It's our relationship with Jesus that saves anyone, not their behavior. It's hard for people to accept that, but that's what the bible teaches. As far as the east is from the west, He has removed our sins from us.