Spoken4byChrist Posted December 27, 2004 Share Posted December 27, 2004 to all this talk on war: we are already at war! a spiritual war, against satan and all evil he is trying to place in this world. we need to pray,and pray hard- not fight. to the talk on where the aborted babies go: i think Mary said in medjugorje, that she had all the aborted babies with her, and i believe it. Mother Mary takes care of her children. to what "journeyman" wrote: THAT is awesome! and THAT is what we need! God Bless you all, yours in Christ, Katherine Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don John of Austria Posted December 27, 2004 Share Posted December 27, 2004 [quote]I'm sure that the 45 000 000 dead babies would rather see us protest abortion and actually make an effort that isn't glamorized and filled with bloodlust. [/quote] Really you think well since they cannot possibly be in Heaven, since they cannot possibly see the Beatific vision, I don't think that that is so, I think that tainted as they are by origional sin they probably desire vengeance and have little if any room for forgiveness. Have anyof you concidered that as a baby is ripped apart that they may hate there killer and that hate might be enough to send them to Hell( rather than some other non beatific destination), i am not saying this would always be true or even ussually but sometimeswouldn't that murdered soul be filled with rage and hatred. No I think you probably wouldn't want to poll the dead, they are not likly to be as forgivingg as you might wish to believe. [quote]A war would be totally evil and sinful when there are nonviolent possibilities. [/quote] 8000 babies were murdered since you made that post, exactly what death rate of the innocent is required before it becomes okay to fight. I mean Hitler only killed about 3000 a day, was it wrong for people to fight him, was that "totally evil and sinful " when is it enough that one can say NO MORE and fight; when is it enough? Of this I can assure you those who's title you have appropriated the Crusaders of old would not agree that 45,000,000 is not enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don John of Austria Posted December 27, 2004 Share Posted December 27, 2004 I still wait for this command of the Popes not to use violence to save the innocent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crusader1234 Posted December 27, 2004 Share Posted December 27, 2004 Hey guys, skipping back a few posts... Cooltuba, you're actually getting at what I was saying, I just didn't really make myself clear enough. Protesting, 'and stuff' to me meant offering solutions that were nonviolent including counselling and stuff - sorry if this was not clear. I was saying we should work for the avoidance of war (see the CCC... we're called to do that) instead of jumping to war. The Holocaust killed people, yes, and yes it was solved by war. The difference is, though, that the Nazi's were a political party that would not be swayed by negotiation. If there are nonviolent options, we are obliged to take these courses of action before we resort to war. It is easier for one to scream 'WAR!' this day in age than getting one's but off the couch and offering counselling and trying to change things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don John of Austria Posted December 27, 2004 Share Posted December 27, 2004 [quote]The Holocaust killed people, yes, and yes it was solved by war. The difference is, though, that the Nazi's were a political party that would not be swayed by negotiation.[/quote] And the Abortionist are swayed by negotiation? [quote] If there are nonviolent options, we are obliged to take these courses of action before we resort to war. [/quote] 32 years of non-violent options, how long are you obliged to take these options, how long before the option has been explored? I guess the allies waiting only a few years that was entirly too fastthey needed another 29 years of negotiation with Hitler, right, no wait, would that have been long enough. [quote]It is easier for one to scream 'WAR!' this day in age than getting one's but off the couch and offering counselling and trying to change things. [/quote] 10's of thousands do this regularly, and have for 32 years and still 4000 babies re murdered a day, so I ask you agian, when is it enough? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crusader1234 Posted December 27, 2004 Share Posted December 27, 2004 Let me put it this way, if there was a war, the only people that should be allowed to fight would be the people that have been exploring these noviolent approaches and getting their butts off the couch. Chances are that war wouldn't go so well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ironmonk Posted December 27, 2004 Author Share Posted December 27, 2004 [quote name='ICTHUS' date='Dec 24 2004, 03:03 AM'] Max, while abortion horrifies me just as much as it does you (I have Spina Bifida, and according to some stats that someone on this site was kind enough to dig up for me, in England, 90% of children diagnosed pre-natally with SB are aborted - who the hell do people think they are to determine 'quality of life?') I fail to see how you're getting from pre-natal abortion clinics to murder clinics where parents take their little children to be murdered. Again, I'm just as horrified by abortion as you are, but this image, horrifying as it is, requires a gigantic leap of logic. [/quote] It doesn't require a gigantic leap of logic at all brother... The biological definition of life is met at conception. What's the difference between a child that is 1 hour old and a unborn child that will be born in 1 hour? Why is it legal to kill one and not the other? What about 1 day? What about 1 week? What about 1 month? The unborn child has the same DNA as he will have after he's born. The unborn child has the same needs as he will need after he's born - oxygen, food, water, shelter. Abortion ends a life that is living. The only difference in killing a three year old child and an unborn child is that people have seen the three year old. If we do not look at abortion as killing a toddler, then we really don't know what abortion is. If it does not make us feel the same, then we really don't understand. God Bless, ironmonk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ironmonk Posted December 27, 2004 Author Share Posted December 27, 2004 [quote name='Don John of Austria' date='Dec 24 2004, 05:00 AM'] possibliltity is not what you are talking about, you have said directly that you believe they [i] [b]will[/b][/i] have the chance to go to heaven, that is dangerously close to universalistic heresy, and/ or pelagianism As I have said before Trent infallablly declared baptism was [i]neccessary[/i] for salvation, not that it was neccessary for those who had heard the gospel but that it was neccessary, that no man could be saved without it. [/quote] Note the word: "chance" Note the context... "will have a chance" = possibility. No it's not close to heresy. It is clear in the Scriptures that those who do not know Christ will be judged by what written on their hearts. It is clear in Scripture that those in Hell (hades/limbo/whatever) who are found in the book of Life will go to Heaven. God Bless. ironmonk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don John of Austria Posted December 27, 2004 Share Posted December 27, 2004 As I said Ironmonk you do not treat it as a posssiblitiy, you speak of it as a fact, look bck at your post, there is a possibility that God will Grant these children a chance to be saved, but it is not a chance that has ever been revealed, thus we must presume that it does not exist, for to do otherwise is to commit the sin of prersumption regarding salvation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don John of Austria Posted December 27, 2004 Share Posted December 27, 2004 [quote]Let me put it this way, if there was a war, the only people that should be allowed to fight would be the people that have been exploring these noviolent approaches and getting their butts off the couch. Chances are that war wouldn't go so well. [/quote] That statement is so out of line with Tradition and Natural Law and even common sense as to be ludicrous.I guess the only people who where right to fight hitler where the ones who had protested him, the only ones right to fight the Muslims where those who had been missionaries to them well Charles Martel, his Grand Son Blessed Charlemagne, I guess they are both in serious trouble, not to mentiopn there troops. Since you [i]will [/i]give me no answer, since you [i]can[/i] give me no no numberof dead that makes it okay to use violence, since you can give me no time limit on how long you must attempt negotiation to stop murder before it is morally permissable to use force to stop murder, I will give you one. 0 you are not required to allow anyone to be murdered before it is permissable to use force to stop a murder, you are not required to negotiate for even a single instant to use force agianst one intent on murder, you are only required to in good conscience ascertain that intent, if I see a man on the street trying to murder someone I am morally permitied to use however much force is neccessary agianst that man to " remove the murderer from him" ( lets not dress up the act of murder in the word combatant) if it kills himso be it, if I am required to kill him to "remove the murderer" from the man then it is morally permissable to do so. The question is not "is war agianst abortionist morally permissable" a highschool freshmen with 9th grade theology can tell you that it is, according to natural Law and the tradition of the Church that is not even debatable, the Question is "is War agianst abortionist and their allies morally obligatory" that [i]is[/i] debatable. If you wish to debate that then do so, but please do not say that it would be sinful to wage war on them as that is so far from the Tradition of the Church and the Rubrics of Natural Law as to either be idiotic, which I don not believe you are, or sinfully evil in its callous disregard for the well being of the innocent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ironmonk Posted December 27, 2004 Author Share Posted December 27, 2004 [quote name='Don John of Austria' date='Dec 27 2004, 01:04 PM'] As I said Ironmonk you do not treat it as a posssiblitiy, you speak of it as a fact, look bck at your post, there is a possibility that God will Grant these children a chance to be saved, but it is not a chance that has ever been revealed, thus we must presume that it does not exist, for to do otherwise is to commit the sin of prersumption regarding salvation. [/quote] It is a fact that they might be saved. The fact that the fact exists is because it has been revealed. It is revealed through logical conclusions of what has been taught by the Church through Scripture and Tradition. If 1 exists, and 1 exists, then 1 + 1 = 2. It is not the sin of presumption. God will judge all. Not just some. All will go before Christ. Going before Christ is a chance at salvation. Facts: -Those who have not heard the Gospel will be judged because the law is written on their hearts. -A unbaptized infant/unborn child could not have had a chance to hear the Gospel. -The law written on their hearts will justify them. -God is Just. -Christ loves the Children. -There is a place that is not Heaven and is not Gehenna and is not Purgatory. -There will be souls there. Those written in the book of life will have salvation, those not written in the book of life will not have salvation... That is a fact that it is a chance at salvation. Therefore every unborn child that has died or child that has not been baptized will have a chance at salvation. God Bless, ironmonk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lavender Posted December 27, 2004 Share Posted December 27, 2004 [quote name='ironmonk' date='Dec 27 2004, 12:14 PM'] Therefore every unborn child that has died or child that has not been baptized will have a chance at salvation. [/quote] Mkay, I don't have a lot of hard evidence from the Bible in my mental hard drive, but I'm going to give my two cents anyway based on what I believe and what's already been said. Let's get back to the basics. God loves us. He wants us all to make it to heaven. And if he thought that there was absolutely no way for the infant in question to hear the Gospel or get baptized or whatever other "requirements" are necessary to get to heaven, wouldn't he cut them some slack? Babies are innocent. They haven't had time to sin yet! Unless you count spewing food onto their exhasperated parents... They don't have a full understanding of the world around them and cannot understand the basics of right and wrong that is assumed gradually over time. They can't yet grasp the concept of Jesus and his saving power, which is in the words of God, the only possible way to get to heaven. So why would God give them a lifetime of punishment that they haven't earned yet? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ironmonk Posted December 27, 2004 Author Share Posted December 27, 2004 [quote name='Lavender' date='Dec 27 2004, 03:50 PM'] Mkay, I don't have a lot of hard evidence from the Bible in my mental hard drive, but I'm going to give my two cents anyway based on what I believe and what's already been said. Let's get back to the basics. God loves us. He wants us all to make it to heaven. And if he thought that there was absolutely no way for the infant in question to hear the Gospel or get baptized or whatever other "requirements" are necessary to get to heaven, wouldn't he cut them some slack? Babies are innocent. They haven't had time to sin yet! Unless you count spewing food onto their exhasperated parents... They don't have a full understanding of the world around them and cannot understand the basics of right and wrong that is assumed gradually over time. They can't yet grasp the concept of Jesus and his saving power, which is in the words of God, the only possible way to get to heaven. So why would God give them a lifetime of punishment that they haven't earned yet? [/quote] Babys aren't guilty of sin, but they have the stain of original sin. Original sin will keep us from entering Heaven. We can only go by what has been revealed by God through His Church because His Church is the pillar and foundation of truth (1 Tim 3:15) and is guided in all truth (St. John 14). God Bless, ironmonk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ICTHUS Posted December 27, 2004 Share Posted December 27, 2004 [quote name='ironmonk' date='Dec 27 2004, 09:22 AM'] It doesn't require a gigantic leap of logic at all brother... The biological definition of life is met at conception. What's the difference between a child that is 1 hour old and a unborn child that will be born in 1 hour? Why is it legal to kill one and not the other? What about 1 day? What about 1 week? What about 1 month? The unborn child has the same DNA as he will have after he's born. The unborn child has the same needs as he will need after he's born - oxygen, food, water, shelter. Abortion ends a life that is living. The only difference in killing a three year old child and an unborn child is that people have seen the three year old. If we do not look at abortion as killing a toddler, then we really don't know what abortion is. If it does not make us feel the same, then we really don't understand. God Bless, ironmonk [/quote] I guess what I'm getting at is that a pro-choice person would laugh at that analogy - as you're jumping from pre-natal abortion to post-natal outright murder as society sees it. Expressed the way you did, I see the logic in it. And yes, we ought to be just as outraged by abortion clinics as a hypothetical murder clinic you described. I suppose, though, your analogy would be laughed at because nobody in our society would be heinous enough to create such a place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ICTHUS Posted December 27, 2004 Share Posted December 27, 2004 [quote name='ironmonk' date='Dec 27 2004, 12:14 PM'] It is a fact that they might be saved. The fact that the fact exists is because it has been revealed. It is revealed through logical conclusions of what has been taught by the Church through Scripture and Tradition. If 1 exists, and 1 exists, then 1 + 1 = 2. It is not the sin of presumption. God will judge all. Not just some. All will go before Christ. Going before Christ is a chance at salvation. Facts: -Those who have not heard the Gospel will be judged because the law is written on their hearts. -A unbaptized infant/unborn child could not have had a chance to hear the Gospel. -The law written on their hearts will justify them. -God is Just. -Christ loves the Children. -There is a place that is not Heaven and is not Gehenna and is not Purgatory. -There will be souls there. Those written in the book of life will have salvation, those not written in the book of life will not have salvation... That is a fact that it is a chance at salvation. Therefore every unborn child that has died or child that has not been baptized will have a chance at salvation. God Bless, ironmonk [/quote] Ironmonk, I wish to take issue with something you said "The Law written on their hearts will justify them" How can anyone be justified by the Law, when Paul explicitly denies as much? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now