Dumb quote of the week award

[Magical Realist]

This one goes to J. D. Vance:

"I think it’s very, very important for the pope to be careful when he talks about matters of theology."

Uh...that's pretty much his one field of expertise moron...lol

Here's some deep theology for ya JD!

"He who lives by the sword shall die by the sword."---Jesus Christ

[Syne]

"He who lives by the sword shall die by the sword."---Jesus Christ

Yes, the Iran regime has lived by the sword, funding terrorism and murdering peaceful protesters in the tens of thousands. They don't die by the sword unless good men do it. The Trump admin brokered more peace than war, including lately, with the Israel-Lebanon cooperation.

[Magical Realist]

Yes, the Iran regime has lived by the sword, funding terrorism and murdering peaceful protesters in the tens of thousands. They don't die by the sword unless good men do it.

God doesn't appoint men (and certainly not Trump) to use the sword on others who have used the sword in the past. That would mean they would have to die by the sword too, and so on and so on until we'd all be dead.

[Syne]

Yes, the Iran regime has lived by the sword, funding terrorism and murdering peaceful protesters in the tens of thousands. They don't die by the sword unless good men do it.

God doesn't appoint men (and certainly not Trump) to use the sword on others who have used the sword in the past. That would mean they would have to die by the sword too, and so on and so on until we'd all be dead.

The Bible repeatedly shows God commanding people to wage war. People can use violence, when necessary and appropriate, without "living by the sword."

"Live by the sword, die by the sword" means that those who use violence, aggression, or underhanded methods to gain power or success will eventually be destroyed by those same methods. It suggests that the means of one’s success becomes the cause of their downfall, often implying a form of poetic justice or karma.
- Google AI

The Iran regime only succeeds through violence. Trump gained power in a free and fair election.

[Magical Realist]

Trump used the sword and violence by declaring war on Iran. Which is against God's command. It's not his job to dole out the death sentence for crimes committed years ago. The Pope is absolutely right on this. Christianity, as per Christ's own teachings, is always against war. "Turn the other cheek" you know. NOT "an eye for an eye."

[Syne]

No, the Bible does not have any command forbidding all war and violence. You'd know that if you were half as knowledgeable of the Bible as you delusionally believe yourself to be.

The Case for Absolute Pacifism
Many scholars and "Peace Churches" (like Quakers or Mennonites) argue that this is a command against all violence.

Rejection of "Righteous" Violence: In the Garden, Peter was defending the most "innocent" person in history against an "evil" act. By stopping Peter, Jesus suggests that even when the cause is just, the means of violence are not.
The Nature of the Kingdom: Jesus often taught that his kingdom was "not of this world." If it were, his servants would fight (John 18:36). Therefore, using worldly weapons to fight evil is seen as a lack of faith in God’s power.
Loving Enemies: This command aligns with the Sermon on the Mount, where Jesus tells followers to "turn the other cheek" and "love your enemies."

The Case for "Just War" and Self-Defense
Other traditions, particularly within Catholicism and Reformed Protestantism, argue that this was a situational command rather than a universal ban on all force.

Interference with Prophecy: The primary reason Jesus stopped Peter was that the arrest had to happen for the crucifixion to occur. Peter wasn't being told that "all defense is sin," but that "defending me right now is wrong."
Protection of the Innocent: Proponents of Just War Theory argue that while we should not use violence for personal revenge, we have a moral duty to use force to protect the weak from "evil" (e.g., stopping a genocide or an aggressor).
The "Two Swords": Just before this, in Luke 22:38, Jesus acknowledged the disciples had two swords and said, "It is enough." This is often used to suggest he approved of carrying weapons for basic protection against bandits on the road.
- Google AI

Guess which represents more Western Christians. 9_9

[Magical Realist]

Protection of the Innocent: Proponents of Just War Theory argue that while we should not use violence for personal revenge, we have a moral duty to use force to protect the weak from "evil" (e.g., stopping a genocide or an aggressor).

Which means the pre-emptive attack on Iran was not a just war but an act of revenge for past killings. That's why the Pope himself said it doesn't meet the criteria for a just war. Jesus was quite clear on this. "Love your enemies", not "kill their entire civilization." Jesus was definitely a strong pacifist just like Gandhi was.

[Syne]

Protection of the Innocent: Proponents of Just War Theory argue that while we should not use violence for personal revenge, we have a moral duty to use force to protect the weak from "evil" (e.g., stopping a genocide or an aggressor).

Which means the pre-emptive attack on Iran was not a just war but an act of revenge for past killings. That's why the Pope himself said it doesn't meet the criteria for a just war. Jesus was quite clear on this. "Love your enemies", not "kill their entire civilization." Jesus was definitely a strong pacifist just like Gandhi was.

No, as per the stated goals all along, Operation Epic Fury has always been about protecting people... from Iran's missiles, getting nukes, their terror proxies, and destroying their navy that could threaten international trade. And if that stops them from future murders of tens of thousands of peaceful Iranian protesters, all the better. The Pope never laid out criteria for any war being just, so you're just lying.

Yes, Pope Francis has stated that "wars are always unjust" and that "there is no such thing as a just war". He argued that the concept of a "just war" is no longer applicable in modern times, stating that "war itself is a crime against humanity" and a "defeat for humanity".
- Google AI

Jesus wasn't an absolute pacifist:

Whether Jesus was a pacifist is a subject of intense debate, with interpretations split between him advocating non-resistance and demonstrating righteous, active confrontation. While he taught loving enemies and turning the other cheek, he also used physical force in the Temple cleansing and told disciples to buy swords.
- Google AI

But thanks for continuing to prove that you don't know the Bible and definitely don't understand modern Christians. You're just a delusional and pathological liar.

[Magical Realist]

No, as per the stated goals all along, Operation Epic Fury has always been about protecting people... from Iran's missiles, getting nukes, their terror proxies, and destroying their navy that could threaten international trade.

So all this time you were justifying bombing Iran based on them killing people in the past was just BS and now it's about protecting people. Protecting people from what? They were all living peacefully in Tehran when Trump started bombing their city and killing hundreds of kids. How the fuck is that a just war?

The Pope never laid out criteria for any war being just, so you're just lying.

He said the bombing of Iran isn't a just war dumbass.

"The Church’s teaching on legitimate defense can be found in Paragraph 2309 of the Catechism, which lays out rigorous conditions, all of which must be met for military action to be justified. Because of the high bar to meet, accusations of pacificism against the papacy are nothing new. For instance, St. John Paul II faced similar charges for his criticism of the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003.

Feser pointed out that Pope Leo is clearly not a pacificist by virtue of a speech he gave just last month to Italian military ordinaries. The Pope said: “The mission of the Christian soldier is … defending the weak … [and] operating in international missions to preserve peace and restore order.”

Pope Leo’s remarks criticizing those who “wage war” must necessarily be understood in light of those remarks, Feser said, which clearly show that the Pope was criticizing those who show aggression by initiating wars, not those who defend themselves or others against aggression."--- https://www.ncregister.com/news/pope-leo...r-teaching

Whether Jesus was a pacifist is a subject of intense debate, with interpretations split between him advocating non-resistance and demonstrating righteous, active confrontation. While he taught loving enemies and turning the other cheek, he also used physical force in the Temple cleansing and told disciples to buy swords.

Nope..turning over money changers' tables in the Temple doesn't mean he supported war. He was protecting the sanctity of the Temple itself. He was a hardcore pacifist thru and thru. That's why he said "Whoever lives by the sword shall die by the sword."

[Syne]

No, as per the stated goals all along, Operation Epic Fury has always been about protecting people... from Iran's missiles, getting nukes, their terror proxies, and destroying their navy that could threaten international trade.

So all this time you were justifying bombing Iran based on them killing people in the past was just BS and now it's about protecting people. Protecting people from what? They were all living peacefully in Tehran when Trump started bombing their city and killing hundreds of kids. How the fuck is that a just war?

Revenge for the past has always been your strawman. Iranians have been living under continuous threat of murder from the regime, for protesting, speaking out, not wearing a hijab, being gay, etc.. This was an ongoing threat, which is why Iranian people welcome the attack, and dread it being ended before their nightmare is ended.

The Pope never laid out criteria for any war being just, so you're just lying.

He said the bombing of Iran isn't a just war dumbass.

He's said that no war is just. He didn't qualify that with any criteria, hence you're a liar.

Whether Jesus was a pacifist is a subject of intense debate, with interpretations split between him advocating non-resistance and demonstrating righteous, active confrontation. While he taught loving enemies and turning the other cheek, he also used physical force in the Temple cleansing and told disciples to buy swords.

Nope..turning over money changers' tables in the Temple doesn't mean he supported war. He was protecting the sanctity of the Temple itself. He was a hardcore pacifist thru and thru. That's why he said "Whoever lives by the sword shall die by the sword."

Funny how you always ignore critical parts of my posts. 9_9