Eglise catholique: « Si quelqu’un dit que les miracles ne peuvent jamais être connus avec certitude ni servir à prouver efficacement l’origine de la religion chrétienne, qu’il soit anathème. » (Concile Vatican I, Constitution dogmatique Dei Filius, Denzinger 3034)
@FeserEdward Ed convinced me of his position through his book. I used to be anti death penalty but his book changed my mind because I was opened to arguments. Thank you Ed
@KristanHawkins It is not inconsistent. There's no contradiction in holding both of the following propositions:
1) it is wrong to kill innocent human beings and 2) it is morally licit to kill the worst criminals.
No logical contradiction here.
@MisericordeF Si. Je pense que la peine de mort pour apostasie est indéfendable du point de vue moral et que chaque personne doit être libre de ne plus pratiquer sa religion sans être menacée de mort. Donc je veux bien en débattre aux côtés de Bruno Guillot
The popesplainers really need to knock it off with this Orwellian gaslighting. It just makes them look stupid or dishonest. There is no “Gee, what did they really mean?” ambiguity whatsoever in what scripture or earlier popes such as St. Innocent I, Innocent III, St. Pius V, St. Pius X, Pius XII et al. said about the issue of capital punishment. Indeed, in some cases (such as Innocent I and Innocent III) they spoke precisely to end debate on the matter and affirm that the liceity in principle of the death penalty is flatly a matter of Catholic orthodoxy. There is lucid consistency on this issue until Francis. The popesplainers who pretend otherwise by suggesting that maybe everyone has somehow been misunderstanding everything for two millennia succeed only in living up to the worst stereotypes peddled by Protestant and atheist critics of Catholic apologetics. When they attribute to the popes greater discretion vis-a-vis doctrine than the Church herself has ever said they have, they do not uphold papal authority but make a laughingstock of it.
Some people delude themselves that he’s joking. He is not joking (and it would be repulsive even as a joke, given the context). Trump has said this sort of thing repeatedly over the years. He even devoted a whole chapter of his self-help book Think Big and Kick Ass to singing the praises of revenge. (Not justice, revenge.) For example, he relates the case of a former employee who failed to help him when he needed it, but later faced hard times of her own, losing her business, her home, and her husband. This, Trump says, made him “really happy,” and “now I go out of my way to make her life miserable” (p. 180). He also tells us about an athlete friend of his who had been betrayed by his manager but declined to take Trump’s advice to get revenge. Trump actually broke off the friendship over this, refusing to associate any further with a “loser,” “schmuck,” and “jerk” who would refuse to get even (p. 192).
This is a direct repudiation of the teaching of Christ, who says: “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven” (Matthew 5:43-45).
Imagine being so cluelessly narcissistic as to think it appropriate to say what Trump said at, of all places, a memorial service for a devout Christian, whose wife had just movingly expressed forgiveness for his murderer. Christ’s message, followed by its very antithesis. It’s almost as if the audience is being put to a test.
@AlexIslamic De plus donnez les sources pour chacune des citations que vous citez sinon c'est de la diffamation pure et simple. Pour l'avortement Kirk a évidemment raison de comparer cela à un génocide. Toute personne ayant un minimum de sens moral devrait faire ce constat.