“You invent an evil character like Satan”
Invent? It is too tragic to laugh.
“This pope believes the same.”
Citation, please.
“In a modern country like ours it is always possible to hold the killer in confinement, thus no justification for the death penalty in practice.”
Not just hold in confinement, but ensure that others are protected from him. This is not possible, for several reasons. One, people are responsible for confining him, and are thus at risk of being killed by him. Two, there is always the possibility of escape. Three, there is always the possibility that some bleeding-heart will release him to the general prison population, putting them at risk. Four, there is always the possibility that some bleeding-heart will release him from prison. Five, the death penalty is the strongest deterrent, and we owe that to future victims. Six, justice demands the death penalty for murder, as it says in the Bible.
“The point is that you say the left follows evil, but here they agree with the most respected Christian in the world. Thus you can’t say all their beliefs are guided by Satan without accusing the Pope of the same.”
See how Satan clouds the vision of those who let him? One, I didn’t say that *all* the beliefs of the left (as in each and every niggling detail) are from Satan. Two, even if I had, saying that one of the Pope’s believes is from Satan would not require me to say that all the Pope’s beliefs are from Satan, obviously, and three, an earlier pope noted that the smoke of Satan has entered the sacristy, so one is not surprised to see a mistake in prudential judgment.
“You mean several matters of morals.”
No, I mean several matters of prudential judgment. In Catholicism, matters of faith and morals are in a different category from matters of prudential judgment.
“We come back to the point of if you disagree with someone on a moral issue, that doesn’t automatically make his position evil, just different.”
Actually, it does mean that at least one of you is evil. Both of you, unless one of you is right. See, the question is not whether anybody disagrees with me or not; the question is whether someone obeys God or not.
“Well, this Pope is really back-to-the-basics, a doctrinal hardliner, and continues the moral belief and policy with reference to the death penalty.”
Way to contradict yourself, boyo. A back-to-the-basics doctrinal hardliner would support the death penalty.
“It’s the reason we have statutory rape laws. Or do you really think an eight year-old can consent?”
So you accept the principle, yet deny its protection to many categories of person.
“To me the embodiment of the will of a moral society is seen in the voluntary actions of that society, not in law enacted by a possible minority of the population.”
The voluntary actions are one manifestation of the will. If that will is not also reflected in the legal code, degeneracy follows.
Yet all other such figures were supposedly invented?
Citation, please.
The Church's position hasn't changed. Last year he gave a medal to the president of the Philippines for signing a law ending the death penalty. We know he's against it although it's authorized by the Bible, but he believes in mercy as commanded by the Bible (see "Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion"). He does believe there is room for a difference of opinion on this moral issue. Of course, that's just a nice way of saying people have a difference in morals.
I don't agree with the Pope on this, but I recognize we have a difference in our moral views. I don't think that difference makes him evil though.
But all this goes to say that even devout Christians have different views on what is moral according to God. Therefore, you can't say your specific view is the one moral view, all others being evil (that's not to say there aren't evil ones out there). Most any statement of evil you make in politics like this is your personal opinion, your interpretation of what God wants, and you are entitled to it. But it's just that, your opinion, not an absolute. Otherwise you claim you know God better than all others.
See, the question is not whether anybody disagrees with me or not; the question is whether someone obeys God or not.
The question is often whose interpretation of the will of God is right or not. I saw a woman in a church whose hair was uncovered. Should I have demanded she cover and shaved her head if she didn't, calling her immoral for violating the will of God?
Way to contradict yourself, boyo. A back-to-the-basics doctrinal hardliner would support the death penalty.
Not at all. I understand his position and his logic, I just don't agree.
So you accept the principle, yet deny its protection to many categories of person.
Give me some equivalent categories of person.
The voluntary actions are one manifestation of the will. If that will is not also reflected in the legal code, degeneracy follows.
If the will is there for everyone, no degeneracy will follow. You could leave and make your own country based strictly on biblical law, but then I have a feeling your country could look a lot like one of the strict Muslim countries, depending on who is doing the interpretation of God's will.
BTW, please don’t take any of this as a denigration or devaluation of your personal faith. That is not my intent. Some of your statements have been pretty demeaning, and in response I let my posts get likewise.