Mortal Sin Question

[With_Questions]

Let someone a little better trained address this. I copied this from the forums today from Father Vicent Serpa. I don’t want to misguide you.

If a person is near death & there is no preist around (for example, passengers are aware their airplane is going down), can an ordinary person hear a person’s confession? I’ve heard this is acceptable, obviously only in extreme situations. Although, someone else told me the ordinary person can listen, but cannot forgive any “mortal” sins - since they can’t administer the sacrament of penance…???. So is the confession “valid?”

Only a priest has the power to forgive sins (Canon 965). If one is in danger of death and no priest is available, one should try to make a perfect act of contrition, i.e., asking for God’s mercy out of love for Him rather than out of fear of punishment.

Fr. Vincent Serpa, O.P.

Hi:
This is nice but it really does not answer the question I have.

 

[PerryJ]

So I may surmise that you believe that if Peter had croaked between the point where he fell and the point where the rooster crowed, that he would have gone to hell.

I don’t know. I would assume it would depend on if he felt remorse about the action. If he would repent.

I don’t know if this story is true; however, I think it pertains to your thoughts. A woman went to Padre Pio to see if her husband went to Hell. The man jumped off a bridge and died. Suicide is a mortal sin. Padre Pio, a mystic, stated that her husband was not in Hell. He was in purgatory. As the man was falling he cried out to God to save him. He was saved; but, had to go to purgatory for cleansing. Again I do not know if this story is true; however, I believe it is addressing your issue.

 

[With_Questions]

I don’t know. I would assume it would depend on if he felt remorse about the action. If he would repent.

I don’t know if this story is true; however, I think it pertains to your thoughts. A woman went to Padre Pio to see if her husband went to Hell. The man jumped off a bridge and died. Suicide is a mortal sin. Padre Pio, a mystic, stated that her husband was not in Hell. He was in purgatory. As the man was falling he cried out to God to save him. He was saved; but, had to go to purgatory for cleansing. Again I do not know if this story is true; however, I believe it is addressing your issue.

I am not sure this is quite the same.

You see in your scenario the time sequence is
(1) Man jumps bridge
(2) Man cries out to God and presumably repents
(3) Man dies

In my scenario the time sequence is
(1) Peter denies Christ
(2) Peter repents a couple of hours later when the rooster crows

My interest is the eternal state of Peter between point in time 1 and point in time 2 if Peter had died. With your example the man dies after point in time 2.

Although this might sound like nitpicking, to me it really is not.

 

[GailMac]

I’m answering off the cuff, then I’ll go back and read the whole thread. So — Off the cuff, I’d say yes, your affection for killing the Bambis of the world and your hunting buddies cost you your salvation.

The OP calls the hypothetical questioner a “Good” Catholic, but I would say, a good Catholic, may be tempted to go hunting knowing they’d get jammed up to find a Mass, but they would make sure they could fulfill their Sunday obligation BEFORE they consented to go hunting in the first place. A Cultural Catholic, a pew-potatoe who thinks Father should personally congratulate them every single time they make it to Mass, well, missing Mass with that sinful state of mind isn’t the only problem for the poor Bambi basher. If the OP’s hypothetical parishoner is finding it easy to miss Mass and write it off to being merely human and like everybody else, then that person is already in deep trouble spiritually. The “missed” Mass would only be a final obvious mortal sin.

Lots of folks are real sorry for the things they do, but make no attempt to stop doing those things. Repentence means trying to stop doing that which is sinful, both mortal and venial. Presuming that God will make it all better in the Confessional on the next Saturday, so the guy can go hunting and have his Eucharist too, well, that is an attitude I don’t think even God can get around with His Mercy. He love to give it. In fact, He died to give it, but if a person is only sorry on Monday for willful mortal sins on Sunday, then they aren’t really sorry at all. But I’m only human and judge like one. Go ahead, go hunting. Kill all the Bambis in the world! God will make it all better the next time you abuse, oooooops, I mean **use **the Sacrament of Confession!

Peace,

Gail

 

[SuscipeMeDomine]

So I may surmise that you believe that if Peter had croaked between the point where he fell and the point where the rooster crowed, that he would have gone to hell.

You’re assuming there was no contrition. But that’s not what Scripture says.

Then Peter remembered the word that Jesus had spoken: “Before the cock crows you will deny me three times.” He went out and began to weep bitterly (Matt 26:75).

And immediately a cock crowed a second time. Then Peter remembered the word that Jesus had said to him, “Before the cock crows twice you will deny me three times.” He broke down and wept (Mark 14:72).

But Peter said, “My friend, I do not know what you are talking about.” Just as he was saying this, the cock crowed, and the Lord turned and looked at Peter; 16 and Peter remembered the word of the Lord, how he had said to him, “Before the cock crows today, you will deny me three times.” He went out and began to weep bitterly (Luke 22:60-62).

Again, we can live a life that is in relationship with God or one that isn’t. We sin either way since none of us is perfect. We’re given the opportunity for forgiveness.

Actually sir, I am trying to understand this because because I am getting mixed messages in this thread.

Probably because none of us is an expert on the topic. We’re trying to give you our best understanding of the topic.

 

[GailMac]

Another question or two
(1) Of course the Catholic church has a list of mortal sins. Is this list infallible? Or could it be incorrect. In other words, is it infallible teaching that missing mass is a mortal sin? ----- I’d say only as infallible as the Ten Commandments. Our Sunday obligation is as old as Moses and all of Isreal. Would you say the Ten Commandments are negotiable?

(2) It is my understanding that the list changes in time. Is it therefore possible that at time A one can go to hell for a mortal sin that at time B one gets a pass for. ------ I think you mean certain disciplines change from time to time, i.e. the way we practice Penance on Fridays, the abstinence from meat being optional now, and laypersons being asked to find their own expressions for Penance on Fridays. To some this may seem like a superfical kind of thing, but the obligation to remember Christ’s Passion on Friday is still there as well as the universal call to practice some penitential act to honor it. The real problem if you ask me if a person saw this as superfical, is their underlying rebellion from the Church and her disciplines. That is the deeper sin. Disobedience to something as simple as a once a week dietary restriction or asking for a few moments of remberence of our Lord’s Passion and a few prayers! He died for you, it’s the least you can do.

(3) I seem to recall reading somewhere that theft of a lot of money was a mortal sin while a petty theft was venial. Is that correct?
If so, do you know what the cutoff point is between theft of a little and theft of a whole lot? Also if so is it possible that somebody can be in hell for the mortal sin of theft while at the same time somebody that steals just a little bit less money gets a pass for? — This one I’ll answer with this - supose the “venial” amount was say only fifty cents, but the person who it was stolen from was literally down to their last few cents! And the person doing the stealing knew this and stole it anyway without any compunction whatsoever? Another one of the Ten Commandments broken.

— I’m not going to bother with the last premise. If the Ten Commandments are viewed as negotiable on the part of the poor parishoner who thinks he or she is a “good” Catholic, but merely too human, well then I’d be wasting my words. I would venture to say the person’s real problem is with the Church, not the premises presented. A deeper illness than just a missed Mass or two is more likely. Some good honest soul searching is in order along with some serious prayer.

Peace,

Gail

P.S. I have no clue how to multi-quote, so I hope you can tell where your words end and mine begin.

 

[steve_b]

To prevent another thread from veering off topic, I start this one.

Let’s say I am a good Catholic. I do all of the stuff that Good Catholics do. I love God and Jesus and have put my confidence in him.

But I am also a human good Catholic, prone to the lusts, passions, and failures of normal humans. One of my lusts and passions is that I really, really love hunting.

So this November I decide to take a week off to my hunting camp with my hunting buds to shoot Bambi. I know that I will be missing mass and that this is a mortal sin. But I really, really want to shoot Bambi.

So off to the woods my buds and I go.

I am really, really enjoying hunting. Yes I know there is a Catholic church 15 miles from my camp that I could go to to get my obligation in, but hey that is a pain and interrupts my pleasure. So hunting it will be. Not a minute of remorse here.

Until one of my friends gets careless and mistakes me for a deer and shoots me dead cold. I die in a tragic hunting accident.

Now maybe had I not died, I probably would have realized the error of my ways once I got home and started to feel guilty about this act. So as a good Catholic, I probably would have gone to confession the next time the doors were open. But, unfortunately that is a matter of speculation and in this case the opportunity did not happen anyway.

Now my understanding of Catholicism is that I go straight to hell because of mortal sin.

• Missing mass is a grave matter because the Catholic church says so.

Actually it’s scripture that says it’s grave matter.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=2650059&postcount=35
WQ:

• This is done with full knowledge and consent. I know that the Catholic church teaches this is a mortal sin. But because I really, really love hunting, I made a choice that for this weekend I will put my love for hunting ahead of my love for God.

Is this correct?

I think you’ve answered your own question.

• serious matter
• knowldge that it is serious matter
• commiting the action with full consent

 

[GailMac]

Okay, one more then I’m done for the night. With Questions states:" For example the missing mass problem.
Lets say I am on a two month long vacation. The first Sunday there is a Catholic church within 10 miles. This might be reasonable so I go.

The next Sunday you might be in the boonies of Maine where the nearest is 100 miles, This is unreasonable so you don’t go.

But the next Sunday the nearest church might be 50 miles. We will call this unreasonable.

So the next Sunday the nearest church might be 20 miles. We will call this reasonable.

Do you see that the distance between unreasonable and reasonable is getting closer.

I would also have to ask the question what if I guess wrong. What if I think that 40 miles is unreasonable but God begs to differ. Do I go to hell for this infraction? What if I think 10 miles is unreasonable?"

A person who loves God and tries their best to follow Him isn’t going to make arrangements to go someplace for a month of rest and relaxation where he or she won’t be able to also give Him fitting worship. He wouldn’t think of taking a vacation from God, because he or she is Christocentric. The person would make sure before booking the vacation that his religious practices would be included.

There is also a problem in the understanding of sin. When someone is trying their best to follow Jesus, they are actively trying to avoid all sins, not just the mortal ones. That is a movement of the heart of the believer who is sincere. We love Jesus, and we work to please Him. Your premises seem tilted toward only a partial state of contrition, fear of eternal punishment as the only motive for avoiding mortal sins.

But love brings with it a need that I can’t quite put into words very well. We move beyond merely trying to avoid Hell. We love with our actions, or inactions as the case may be. I think this is an area where you are a little fuzzy. We love Jesus. That is central to being what I would consider a “good” catholic, not just outwards signs of rudimentary obedience because we fear eternal punishment if we do or don’t. That is barely contrite.

Our love for God is our motive to working out our salvation in fear and trembling. We don’t want to displease God in anyway, period. We work on it and that’s our expression of love for Him. We keep His Words, all of them, not just the ones that fit our lifestyle.

Peace,

Gail

 

[steve_b]

Another question or two
(1) Of course the Catholic church has a list of mortal sins.

Yes there is mortal and venial sin and not all sin is mortal [1 Jn 5:16-17]

Mortal sin is mortal (deadly) because it keeps one from heaven. Like these. [Gal 5: 19-21]
WC:

Is this list infallible? Or could it be incorrect. In other words, is it infallible teaching that missing mass is a mortal sin?

scripture says it is grave matter. Is scripture fallible or infallible?
WC:

(2) It is my understanding that the list changes in time. Is it therefore possible that at time A one can go to hell for a mortal sin that at time B one gets a pass for.

Do you think the lists mentioned in scripture change over time?
WC:

(3) I seem to recall reading somewhere that theft of a lot of money was a mortal sin while a petty theft was venial. Is that correct?
If so, do you know what the cutoff point is between theft of a little and theft of a whole lot? Also if so is it possible that somebody can be in hell for the mortal sin of theft while at the same time somebody that steals just a little bit less money gets a pass for?
(4) Actually I can ask this same question for what is discussed here, missing mass if a church is reasonably within distance. Is it possible that somebody can be in hell for the mortal sin of missing mass during vacation because a church was reasonably within distance while at the same time someone else gets a pass because their church was unreasonably far away while in reality there was only a couple of miles difference between the distance of the two churches?

Who are you trying to convince?

 

[With_Questions]

You’re assuming there was no contrition. But that’s not what Scripture says.

Then Peter remembered the word that Jesus had spoken: “Before the cock crows you will deny me three times.” He went out and began to weep bitterly (Matt 26:75).

And immediately a cock crowed a second time. Then Peter remembered the word that Jesus had said to him, “Before the cock crows twice you will deny me three times.” He broke down and wept (Mark 14:72).

But Peter said, “My friend, I do not know what you are talking about.” Just as he was saying this, the cock crowed, and the Lord turned and looked at Peter; 16 and Peter remembered the word of the Lord, how he had said to him, “Before the cock crows today, you will deny me three times.” He went out and began to weep bitterly (Luke 22:60-62).

Hi:
But all of these events recorded in Scripture are a few minutes to a few hours after the point in time at which Peter fell. My interest is this time interval.

Again, we can live a life that is in relationship with God or one that isn’t. We sin either way since none of us is perfect. We’re given the opportunity for forgiveness.

Probably because none of us is an expert on the topic. We’re trying to give you our best understanding of the topic.

Thanks for the honesty.

Perhaps none of you are experts on the topic because the Catechism is truly ambiguous here. Full advice and consent? Exactly what is that? So maybe good Catholics can disagree here.

In the vein of researching stuff out myself, I found this article by Jimmy Akin that seemed interesting.

There was one sentence here that some believe that mortal sin for committed Christians is very rare because there are almost always mitigating factors. Are the persons who believe this heretics?

If not, I would be curious what exactly is meant by that. There was quite a bit of other interesting stuff here. Jimmy does acknowledge that this is one doctrine that perhaps needs “development”.

But perhaps this is a topic where good Catholics can have different understandings of what it means. Some understandings voiced in this thread remind me of the arminianism of holiness Pentecostals where you miss the rapture if you are female and wearing pants when it occurs. This is personally odious to me.

Other underderstanding of this seem closer to the tradition Wesleyan / standard Pentecostal arminianism of say Assemblies of God or Free Methodism that I can live with. Not that I totally agree with it, but meh…I can live with it.

Now you all on this thread seem (at least the majority of you) to be close to the understanding that is odious to me. But maybe that is not the only one that is allowed.

 

[ralphinal]

But wait a minute.

Denying him was a grave matter.

Certainly Peter knew it was a grave matter.

Isn’t that what mortal sin is?

Peter was under duress because he was not where he should have been in the first place. And he was deliberately ignoring the warnings of Christ received just a few hours ago.

So why give Peter a pass?

This is very confusing to me.

From some answers I get here, I tend to think that my eternal status is random and I had better hope that I don’t croak at an unlucky time.

For other answers that I get I think that maybe in real life mortal sin per Catholicism is just a hypothetical possibility that in real life amongst ordinary Christians rarely if ever occurs.

The matter was grave. That did not change. Period. Peter knew that denying Jesus was wrong. That did not change. What changd was if he truly, freely chose to do it. A point can be made that he did not have true free will on it, as it was in “enemy” teritory. Compair his act to Judas. Who had more “freedom” to choose? Yes, Peter did not have to be there, but he was trying to do god.

It is not a hypothetical possibility that rarely occures. It is a reality that is rarely acknowledged.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

To prevent another thread from veering off topic, I start this one.

Let’s say I am a good Catholic. I do all of the stuff that Good Catholics do. I love God and Jesus and have put my confidence in him.

But I am also a human good Catholic, prone to the lusts, passions, and failures of normal humans. One of my lusts and passions is that I really, really love hunting.

So this November I decide to take a week off to my hunting camp with my hunting buds to shoot Bambi. I know that I will be missing mass and that this is a mortal sin. But I really, really want to shoot Bambi.

So off to the woods my buds and I go.

I am really, really enjoying hunting. Yes I know there is a Catholic church 15 miles from my camp that I could go to to get my obligation in, but hey that is a pain and interrupts my pleasure. So hunting it will be. Not a minute of remorse here.

Until one of my friends gets careless and mistakes me for a deer and shoots me dead cold. I die in a tragic hunting accident.

Now maybe had I not died, I probably would have realized the error of my ways once I got home and started to feel guilty about this act. So as a good Catholic, I probably would have gone to confession the next time the doors were open. But, unfortunately that is a matter of speculation and in this case the opportunity did not happen anyway.

Now my understanding of Catholicism is that I go straight to hell because of mortal sin.

• Missing mass is a grave matter because the Catholic church says so.
• This is done with full knowledge and consent. I know that the Catholic church teaches this is a mortal sin. But because I really, really love hunting, I made a choice that for this weekend I will put my love for hunting ahead of my love for God.

Is this correct?

Note that in real life I really dislike hunting and like Norman Bates in Psycho I wouldn’t hurt a flea.

O - K ​

It is correct as long as we leave God out of the reckoning. The definitions of sin don’t mention God, because His character & activity is “understood”; God is the atmosphere of everything in existence (& therefore in the Church), which is why He is so seldom referred to. Why bother to say that mortal sin is against the Blessed Trinity ? The CC is a Trinitarian Church, so there is no need to say that every time God is mentioned - it goes without saying that He is.

In life as it actually occurs - as distinct from the vastly simplified analyses of it in books - God is fully active. Not in part of life, but in all of it, in all respects. On paper, a setting for human acts can be described as you have - but those acts are far more complex in reality.

This is why confessors need principles on which to base the judgements they make when hearing confessions - a nun, a student & a male nurse are all capable of mortal sin, but their individual circumstances are different; & that affects their moral characters. The analyses of (in this case) mortal sin, give confessors principles applicable to every mortal sin, so that no matter what the varieties of personal circumstances, really mortal sinful acts, & acts not in fact mortally sinful, can be identified. Experience of life, habits, intention, usual behaviour, temptations, & a host of other variables, mean that the same moral principles cannot be applied as though everyone were at university or were a nun or a bank clerk. Only a bad chef would treat eggs & pastry in the very same way: a priest who applied the same principles in the same way to people in widely different circumstances, as though the temptations & opportunities for good & evil were the same for cloistered nuns as for firemen or kindergarten teachers, would do great harm; like a mother giving nuts to all her children even though one of them is allergic to nuts. “One size” does not “fit all” - not in every day life, nor in the Christian life.

For instance:

The Church’s law on going to Mass is valid as a principle of action, but it allows exceptions. It gives way to the care of the sick: a mother with a very sick child might well be sinning if she went to Mass despite being needed at home. If she had no idea such exceptions existed, that would alter her moral status. If she went to Mass because she could not care less for the child despite its need, the obedience to the command to go to Mass would be no true obedience, but a display of callousness, aggravated by the mother’s position as the mother of that child.

The outward appearance of obedience without the reality of it is material obedience: the action commanded has been outwardly done, but its soul, that makes it truly obedience to the command, is lacking. Morally, it is dead. This is why merely to be present in body at Mass is very different from the truly active participation spoken of by Vatican II - AP means that one is attending closely to what is happening, & therefore making it one’s own prayer too; one is truly praying with the Church. Merely to “go through the motions” is not prayer, but irreverence.

The outline you give doesn’t tell the full story of the man’s moral responsibility. Only in the complexity of life can we find that in its entirety, & even we do not know all that is in our hearts. Because our knowledge of our hearts is inexact & incomplete at best, we are not good judges of ourselves. All this applies even more to others than ourselves, & most of all to those of whom we know only by name. We can see outward acts, & can make approximate judgements of the characters of others; & long experience of them, such as close friendship, can tell us much a stranger would not see. That is the limit of our knowledge (barring extra-ordinary gifts such as the knowledge of hearts given to a few Saints).

So the man cannot be certainly judged to be as badly off as he appears to be. That’s the trouble with fictional cases - they are fiction

Any help to you ?

 

[Corki]

This is within reason correct?

Sure. For example if you are in a Muslim country or China where going to Mass would put your or someone else’s life in danger then it would not be a sin. Otherwise, you need to make all reasonable efforts to make it.

 

[With_Questions]

O - K ​

Any help to you ?

Sort of, although I have to think about it.

As you might surmise I am trying to figure out whether Catholicism is a hyper-Arminianist denomination like holiness Pentecostals where you lose your salvation if you are a woman wearing pants when the rapture comes. Or whether it is closer in spirit to traditional Methodism which I could like with.

Of course I am getting what seems to me to be different answers here.

So my question has shifted to what sort of opinions on this issue are permitted under Catholicism and which are blatant heresy. Since full advice and full consent are ambiguous phrases, perhaps there are some opinions that one can hold as a faithful Catholic on this issue that I could at least live with if not totally agree with.

I do have to tell you that most (but not all) of the opinions I have read in this thread are down right odious to me. Catholicism is being presented as a faith where your eternal destiny with the Lord is as a flickering light bulb (on,off,on,off,on…). Missing mass (unless you have a good excuse that makes you not culpable) is a sin in which you reject God, and God therefore kicks you out of the kingdom and sends you directly to hell. Yuck.

Your opinion at first glance does not seem to be odious to me.

 

[Americanrevert]

[QUOTEcorki said, Sure. For example if you are in a Muslim country or China where going to Mass would put your or someone else’s life in danger then it would not be a sin. Otherwise, you need to make all reasonable efforts to make it.
[/QUOTE]

Here we go again. Why pick on an Islamic country? There are churches here in UAE and I see nor hear anyone killing. I see Christians standing outside their church and I see no one rushing over there and committin murder. sheesh

americanrevert

 

[Thing]

[QUOTEcorki said, Sure. For example if you are in a Muslim country or China where going to Mass would put your or someone else’s life in danger then it would not be a sin. Otherwise, you need to make all reasonable efforts to make it.

Here we go again. Why pick on an Islamic country? There are churches here in UAE and I see nor hear anyone killing. I see Christians standing outside their church and I see no one rushing over there and committin murder. sheesh

americanrevert

Iraqi Christian Persecution
Muslim extremists forcibly turn Catholic church into mosque

Rome, Jun 6, 2007 / 01:26 pm (CNA).- On the same day as Father Ragheed Ganni’s funeral, Muslim fundamentalists sent another message of hatred to Catholics, this time attacking two churches in Iraq. Fr. Ragheed, along with three deacons were killed just this past Sunday after they had finished celebrating Mass.

According to the AINA news agency, two churches were attacked in the Baghdad district of Dora. At St. John the Baptist’s in Hay Al-Athoriyeen, several security guards who protect the church were killed, and St. Jacob’s in Hay al Asya was vandalized and forcibly turned into a mosque. St. Jacob’s had previously been attacked in October of 2004.

2008

September 19, 2008 - Bishop Jia Zhiguo, Now Released, But Under 24 Hour Police Surveillance
August 25, 2008 - Bishop Jia Zhiguo, an Underground Bishop of Zhengding, is Arrested Again by Chinese Authorities
July 13, 2008 - The Arrest of Two Unofficial (underground) Priests and The Plight of Bishop Jia Zhiguo, and Other Bishops
2007

September 9, 2007 - The Death of An Underground Bishop in Yong Nian, Hebei, China
August 23, 2007 - Underground Bishop Jia Zhiguo is Attested Again; Another Priest is Also Arrested
July 28, 2007 - Four Underground Priests Arrested
June 6, 2007 - Underground Bishop Jia Zhiguo Is Arrested Again
2006

September 29, 2006 - Two Underground Roman Catholic Priests Arrested On Their Way Home From Europe
August 25, 2006 - An Underground Catholic Bishop released after more than 10 years in prison
August 2, 2006 - Underground Catholic Bishop Yao Liang is Arrested Again in China; Another Priest and Some 90 Catholics are Also Arrested
July 6, 2006 - Underground Bishop Jia Zhiguo Is Arrested Again
June 29, 2006 - An Underground Bishop Has Passed Away
February 23, 2006 - Two Underground Roman Catholic Priests Arrested In Hebei; Bishop Jia Zhiguo Is Still In Detention
January 4, 2006 - An Underground Roman Catholic Priest Arrested in Hebei; Another Underground Bishop has Disappeared

catholics kill muslims - could not find news reports.

catholics kill communists - could not find news reports.

Catholic Inquisition kills hindu goddess worshippers - I did find this, however;

CATHOLIC INQUISITION KILL FIVE HINDU GODDESS WORSHIPPERS IN ASSAM INDIA
by newswireusa | August 23, 2006 at 04:53 am | 2650 views | 2 comments
(1) Catholic Church-led Inquisition behead Five Hindus in Indian Assam for ‘witchcraft to convert villagers to Christianity’- <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = “urn:schemas-microsoft-com.office.office” />NewsWireUSA Five beheaded by Catholic Church in Assam for ‘witchcraft’. GUWAHATI: A group of villagers led by Catholic Inquisition and Christian Communists beheaded five Hindu Kali-worshipping people including a man, his wife and teenage daughter, accusing them of practicing witchcraft, the Catholic leaders said on Tuesday. The Catholic religious leaders and Christian communist villagers stormed the house of the 55-year-old Hindu man in Assam’s Kokrajhar district, about 240 km west of the state capital of Dispur, just as the family finished dinner on Monday, a catholic communist villager said. Around the same time, another group of Catholics and communists led by a Catholic religious leader representing the Pope’s Inquisition raided the house of a goddess-worshipping Hindu couple in a nearby village and hacked them to death, and warned all Hindus of the village to stop worshipping Kali. Nearly a dozen people have been killed in the area in the past week by Catholic Communist villagers and Roman Catholic Church who accused the Hindu victims of practicing witchcraft, a practice banned by Roman Catholic Church and Pope. Roman Catholic Missionaries provide police protection to the Catholic terrorists who work as the secular arm of the Jesuits and Roman Catholic Inquisition to burn goddess worshipping Hindus in Assam, Nagaland, Manipur, Tripura, Arnachal Pradesh and Mizoram and it is estimated that more than one million Hindus has been killed by Catholic Inquisition in northeast India during last 50 years with the direct complicity of top Communist and top Vatican leadership.
nowpublic.com/catholic_inquisition_kill_five_hindu_goddess_worshippers_in_assam_india
[/quote]

 

[Americanrevert]

Hello,

Ok, I stand corrected in Iraq…the place where killing is rampant…on both sides! also, look how many Christians there are and have been in Iraq and Iran…and many many many Jews in Iran…you hear no violence.

***But one cannot generalize is what I meant.

---

But again to state as fact, one cannot blame the religion when the Muslims are not abiding by the religion.

americanrevert

 

[Thing]

Hello,

***Ok, I stand corrected in Iraq…the place where killing is rampant…
But again to state as fact, one cannot blame the religion when the Muslims are not abiding by the religion.

americanrevert***

Well, I could search for stories around the world but I don’t feel like putting the time into something like this.
"when the Muslims are not abiding by the religion.- ar " - but let me just say to this that these people do think they are abiding by their religion, their religion allows, somehow or other, for these actions. The Catholic religion is pretty simple and clear; ‘Thou shalt not kill’, ‘Thou shalt not steal (somebody elses church etc.)’.
Anyway…

 

[Americanrevert]

Hello,

by thing…Well, I could search for stories around the world but I don’t feel like putting the time into something like this.
"when the Muslims are not abiding by the religion.- ar " - but let me just say to this that these people do think they are abiding by their religion, their religion allows, somehow or other, for these actions. The Catholic religion is pretty simple and clear; ‘Thou shalt not kill’, ‘Thou shalt not steal (somebody elses church etc.)’.
Anyway…

.

thinking and knowing are two different matters. ***It is easy to get information about Islam and it is easy not to. *** People who refuse to gain and learn their own religion will be accounted for what they refuse to learn. Also, those who know their religion also will be accountable for what they know and what they are, if they are not wanting to learn further…for in Islam, education and learning the religion is incumbent upon every Muslim.

Islam is a way of life…you learn til you die…those who learn teach and are always still learning and memorizing and teaching…it never stops. Too much is there for Islam is the last message to mankind and it is a COMPLETE way of life involving every kind of way.

americanrevert

 

[Thing]

Hello,

thinking and knowing are two different matters. ***It is easy to get information about Islam and it is easy not to. *** People who refuse to gain and learn their own religion will be accounted for what they refuse to learn. Also, those who know their religion also will be accountable for what they know and what they are, if they are not wanting to learn further…for in Islam, education and learning the religion is incumbent upon every Muslim.

Islam is a way of life…you learn til you die…those who learn teach and are always still learning and memorizing and teaching…it never stops. Too much is there for Islam is the last message to mankind and it is a COMPLETE way of life involving every kind of way.

americanrevert

Grand.
Can you tell me something, is there a Divine Law against killing in Islam.
Something like ‘Thou shalt not kill’.
Something like that would be useful in this world and easy to remember.