@EraOccidental@FeserEdward Pacifism would be arguing war is intrinsically immoral and never justifiable.
To say it's not justified given X condition already declares not being a Pacifist. Even if that condition is "after the invention of the nuclear bomb"
Also the Pope excepted defensive wars explicitly
@MelkiteMessiah@Louis3940075560@jarldietrich The Cathars deserved to be wiped out. Some excesses, yeah, but the war was just.
That horrible, satanic sect. May God never allow it to return.
@TheSire4@ErickYbarra3 Like the theory is, if a Pope or smth tried to decree definitely and bindingly something against the settled Deposit of Faith, it would not be a valid decree. Theologians would point it out, it'd be detracted, chaos may happen, and life goes on.
@TheSire4@ErickYbarra3 Highest weight is infallible/definitive(nuance but ill ignore it)/de fide, those can't change ever.
The erring on the old one bit is a hypothetical exercise though because I haven't seen a mention of that being needed. They always try to reconcile, always.
@TheSire4@ErickYbarra3 No, because it can't develop transformatively in substance, only add or nuance what was before. You can know for sure what's the faith.
@vaticansillo@ChudThomist@ClassicalTheis This is spoken of as a sort of condemnation, even though there's no sin personally committed. It's just the inherited state.
One could have a certain hope God saves them extraordinarily, but we have no reason to know for sure.
@vaticansillo@ChudThomist@ClassicalTheis There's a genetic/inherited disconnect from God that makes humans by default separate from blessedness and only worthy of, well, certainly not heaven. That's all.
The debate is then where they go, whether there's no punishment, or the mildest possible punishment.
@premavardhanam@WalmartThomist It's unfortunately a false premise. If only knowledge would make people choose right.
No one does good, no, not one. All do what they know is wrong.
@EDG_Eat@ArchimedesDaVi@WalmartThomist Is large a polite word for fat in Italian? It's not in Spanish. We would think of strong and big, if it is "grande"
@johnholler1787@TDisputations Ok you certainly spent more than 2 minutes on this chain, coming back again and again across several hours. This argument is odd on itself.
Perhaps it is wilful blindness. This doesn't excuse obligation, so it's not gonna do you any good. God save you, John.
@johnholler1787@TDisputations Its kinda obvious once you see it. Broaching every angle is not easy, atheism is something very particular and it's hard to figure out where is the lack. Sometimes it can even be wilful blindness.
You didn't even know what faith is, it seems we'd also need to define God...
@obntsdtd@Blueishsweatsh1@JustinusRomanus What even is mercy meant to mean here
Where Im from and with people I talk with it has more to do with forgiving than killing suicidals.
@johnholler1787@TDisputations >since there is no evidence for God
This is also kinda funny. I can personally vouch the opposite, as do many. You wouldn't believe me though. You have plenty enough to suspect it as at least credible already, though, you just gotta wake up and notice. I pray you do.
@johnholler1787@TDisputations Now, every scientist could theoretically be wrong at once (fat chance though) but God is incapable of lying or being wrong. Hence, the objective certainty for what has been revealed is higher.
For more than this just read the article. Faith is not induced by feeling.
@johnholler1787@TDisputations No, not induced by feeling.
Faith is necessary for daily life. A scientist calculates X km is the distance from Earth to the Sun. If you havent verified it personally, you hold to it on faith, on the basis of their authority.