Topic: Merrin you fraud, I got my answer from the Catechism
Apocalypse Indy™ !bYobIzYIFE started this discussion 5 years ago #99,540
Legitimate defense
2263 The legitimate defense of persons and societies is not an exception to the prohibition against the murder of the innocent that constitutes intentional killing. "The act of self-defense can have a double effect: the preservation of one's own life; and the killing of the aggressor. . . . The one is intended, the other is not."65
2264 Love toward oneself remains a fundamental principle of morality. Therefore it is legitimate to insist on respect for one's own right to life. Someone who defends his life is not guilty of murder even if he is forced to deal his aggressor a lethal blow:
If a man in self-defense uses more than necessary violence, it will be unlawful: whereas if he repels force with moderation, his defense will be lawful. . . . Nor is it necessary for salvation that a man omit the act of moderate self-defense to avoid killing the other man, since one is bound to take more care of one's own life than of another's.66
2265 Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others. The defense of the common good requires that an unjust aggressor be rendered unable to cause harm. For this reason, those who legitimately hold authority also have the right to use arms to repel aggressors against the civil community entrusted to their responsibility.
2266 The efforts of the state to curb the spread of behavior harmful to people's rights and to the basic rules of civil society correspond to the requirement of safeguarding the common good. Legitimate public authority has the right and duty to inflict punishment proportionate to the gravity of the offense. Punishment has the primary aim of redressing the disorder introduced by the offense. When it is willingly accepted by the guilty party, it assumes the value of expiation. Punishment then, in addition to defending public order and protecting people's safety, has a medicinal purpose: as far as possible, it must contribute to the correction of the guilty party.67
2267 Assuming that the guilty party's identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.
If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people's safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.
Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm - without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself - the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity "are very rare, if not practically nonexistent."68
2263 The legitimate defense of persons and societies is not an exception to the prohibition against the murder of the innocent that constitutes intentional killing. "The act of self-defense can have a double effect: the preservation of one's own life; and the killing of the aggressor. . . . The one is intended, the other is not."65
2264 Love toward oneself remains a fundamental principle of morality. Therefore it is legitimate to insist on respect for one's own right to life. Someone who defends his life is not guilty of murder even if he is forced to deal his aggressor a lethal blow:
If a man in self-defense uses more than necessary violence, it will be unlawful: whereas if he repels force with moderation, his defense will be lawful. . . . Nor is it necessary for salvation that a man omit the act of moderate self-defense to avoid killing the other man, since one is bound to take more care of one's own life than of another's.66
2265 Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others. The defense of the common good requires that an unjust aggressor be rendered unable to cause harm. For this reason, those who legitimately hold authority also have the right to use arms to repel aggressors against the civil community entrusted to their responsibility.
2266 The efforts of the state to curb the spread of behavior harmful to people's rights and to the basic rules of civil society correspond to the requirement of safeguarding the common good. Legitimate public authority has the right and duty to inflict punishment proportionate to the gravity of the offense. Punishment has the primary aim of redressing the disorder introduced by the offense. When it is willingly accepted by the guilty party, it assumes the value of expiation. Punishment then, in addition to defending public order and protecting people's safety, has a medicinal purpose: as far as possible, it must contribute to the correction of the guilty party.67
2267 Assuming that the guilty party's identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.
If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people's safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.
Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm - without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself - the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity "are very rare, if not practically nonexistent."68
jodie !foster2PAQ joined in and replied with this 5 years ago, 4 minutes later[^] [v] #1,123,205
hmmm you should try it and then go to confession to get the official answer
Apocalypse Indy™ !bYobIzYIFE (OP) replied with this 5 years ago, 42 seconds later, 5 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,123,206
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 5 years ago, 11 minutes later, 16 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,123,218
While "Father" Merrin used sophistry to avoid the actual question, the good old Catechism gave me a real answer. I was raised Catholic, Merrin. I know whereof I speak.
Anonymous C joined in and replied with this 5 years ago, 9 minutes later, 26 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,123,221
Maybe if you were better able to ask clear, reasonable questions, you'd stand a greater chance of getting the answer you're after!Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U joined in and replied with this 5 years ago, 34 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,123,230
@OP
An "answer" to which question? You mysteriously disappeared yesterday before I could advise you on what to do in the scenario you presented. Here is what you should say if and when you are in the situation you described:
"Look fellas, there's a gun in my nightstand over there and a full box of bullets in the attic. So why don't you all stop pointing your firearms at me, put back what you've taken, and leave my house before somebody gets hurt"
An "answer" to which question? You mysteriously disappeared yesterday before I could advise you on what to do in the scenario you presented. Here is what you should say if and when you are in the situation you described:
"Look fellas, there's a gun in my nightstand over there and a full box of bullets in the attic. So why don't you all stop pointing your firearms at me, put back what you've taken, and leave my house before somebody gets hurt"
16bitch !kYLkfVGCQQ joined in and replied with this 5 years ago, 3 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,123,231
@OP You know you could completely avoid the situation by not having a gun, right? Then you wouldn't have to worry about the moral or religious implications of shooting the robbers, because you wouldn't be able to!
Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U replied with this 5 years ago, 18 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,123,232
@1,123,218 (A)
> I was raised Catholic, Merrin.
Then you should know better than to ask a child to send you explicit child pornography, shouldn't you Matthew?
> I was raised Catholic, Merrin.
Then you should know better than to ask a child to send you explicit child pornography, shouldn't you Matthew?
dreamworks joined in and replied with this 5 years ago, 17 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,123,234
Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U replied with this 5 years ago, 10 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,123,236
@previous (dreamworks)
> This makes literally no sense
If that is the case then you ought to be able to explain what about it "literally makes no sense". So go ahead and I will do my best to elucidate.
> This makes literally no sense
If that is the case then you ought to be able to explain what about it "literally makes no sense". So go ahead and I will do my best to elucidate.
dreamworks replied with this 5 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,123,237
Meta !Sober//iZs joined in and replied with this 5 years ago, 13 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,123,240
@OP
So is Triptych a liar or not? ???
So is Triptych a liar or not? ???
Anonymous H joined in and replied with this 5 years ago, 9 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,123,241
@previous (Meta !Sober//iZs)
She did not actively or knowingly lie. Rather, she was just mistaken and deceived by an imposter.
She did not actively or knowingly lie. Rather, she was just mistaken and deceived by an imposter.
Anonymous C replied with this 5 years ago, 4 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,123,244
Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U replied with this 5 years ago, 1 minute later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,123,245
@1,123,237 (dreamworks)
> If anything it would explain asking kids for naked pics!
Let's take another stab at this. If it is the case that the post you cited "literally makes no sense" then you ought to be able to explain why that is so. Therefore go ahead and I will do my best to elucidate for you.
> If anything it would explain asking kids for naked pics!
Let's take another stab at this. If it is the case that the post you cited "literally makes no sense" then you ought to be able to explain why that is so. Therefore go ahead and I will do my best to elucidate for you.
Blom joined in and replied with this 5 years ago, 26 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,123,253
Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U replied with this 5 years ago, 8 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,123,255
@previous (Blom)
Kindly let him answer for himself, friend. I'm interested to know why he feels the post he cited "makes literally no sense".
Kindly let him answer for himself, friend. I'm interested to know why he feels the post he cited "makes literally no sense".
Anonymous J joined in and replied with this 5 years ago, 22 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,123,263
@previous (Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U)
I would not think God would consider asking a minor for an open leg vulva picture a sin. Maybe thinking about a young open leg vulva and touching yourself in an impure way might be though. But just asking for a photo...naw.
I would not think God would consider asking a minor for an open leg vulva picture a sin. Maybe thinking about a young open leg vulva and touching yourself in an impure way might be though. But just asking for a photo...naw.
Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U replied with this 5 years ago, 3 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,123,266
@previous (J)
> I would not think God would consider asking a minor for an open leg vulva picture a sin. Maybe thinking about a young open leg vulva and touching yourself in an impure way might be though. But just asking for a photo...naw.
This is where you and I differ. I feel God considered it a sin when this "Catholic-raised" Matthew asked a child to send him explicit child pornography. That's why I'm curious to understand why my new friend 'dreamworks' finds that all of this "literally makes no sense".
> I would not think God would consider asking a minor for an open leg vulva picture a sin. Maybe thinking about a young open leg vulva and touching yourself in an impure way might be though. But just asking for a photo...naw.
This is where you and I differ. I feel God considered it a sin when this "Catholic-raised" Matthew asked a child to send him explicit child pornography. That's why I'm curious to understand why my new friend 'dreamworks' finds that all of this "literally makes no sense".
Meta !Sober//iZs replied with this 5 years ago, 14 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,123,272
@1,123,240 (Meta !Sober//iZs)
She has said that she was not deceived and she is absolutely certain that Indy, the real Indy, solicited child pornography from her in Tinychat.
When she says this, is she a liar or not?
She has said that she was not deceived and she is absolutely certain that Indy, the real Indy, solicited child pornography from her in Tinychat.
When she says this, is she a liar or not?
chill dog !!81dzJNNYL joined in and replied with this 5 years ago, 9 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,123,279
Killer Lettuce? !HonkUK.BIE joined in and replied with this 5 years ago, 3 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,123,283
Meta !Sober//iZs replied with this 5 years ago, 8 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,123,286
dreamworks replied with this 5 years ago, 2 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,123,287
@1,123,255 (Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U)
I meant the catholic church has a pedo problem obviously
I meant the catholic church has a pedo problem obviously
(Edited 15 seconds later.)
chill dog !!81dzJNNYL replied with this 5 years ago, 1 minute later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,123,291
Anonymous M joined in and replied with this 5 years ago, 20 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,123,304
Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U replied with this 5 years ago, 11 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,123,306
@1,123,287 (dreamworks)
> I meant the catholic church has a pedo problem obviously
But what about the post you cited "literally makes no sense"?
> I meant the catholic church has a pedo problem obviously
But what about the post you cited "literally makes no sense"?