It is all about intent and without derailing this thread, it also goes to the just war doctrine.
We both posted at exactly the same time! Thank you for the confirmation!
Is spanking a child torture? Is an artillery barrage torture? You have become so fixated on the whip that you have lost sight of all else.
Has there ever been a war that innocents haven’t been killed? I am questioning the notion that “collateral damage” is acceptable and a valid moral stance.
The Church makes the very common sense distinction between the inadvertent killing of innocents and the deliberate or willfully negligent killing. The Church does not categorically condemn war but instead requires it to be conducted in a way that minimizes harm to innocents.
Then you are clearly ignorant of Church teaching on torture.
So “collateral damage” is a moral defensible position in your opinion?
You seem to be playing both sides here.
You still haven’t answered my question. I’ve tried to be courteous and accommodating to your inquires.
The scourging of Jesus way not torture because the Romans used a whip.
Not only in my opinion but in the opinion of the Church. The Church only requires that it be minimized which means that it is a prudential decision, not a categorial one.
No, because I understand a distinction that you do not. It only looks like I am “playing both sides” because you refuse to see what distinguishes the cases.
Killing of innocents is uncategorically wrong. Every effort must be made to avoid the killing of innocents. In war innocents will be killed. Ergo a certain level of innocent deaths are acceptable as long as you weren’t trying to do it.
I’m going to assume you meant “was not” rather than “way not” - So Jesus simply received punishment deemed just by the laws of the state, in your opinion.
No, you are missing the forest for the trees. There is no such thing as an “intentional evil”.
It was not torture because it was a whip. Nor was it torture because it was deemed just by the a laws of the state.
I’m don’t think I’m understanding your statement
Are you saying one cannot intentionally do evil?
My mistake, I meant to say that there is no such thing as “unintentional evil”, to quote your use of the term above. It is true that, colloquially, harms such as natural disasters are called “evils” but this is not an accurate use of the word in the context of Catholic theology.
While some of the agenda of the Conservative movement may seem to coincide with our Catholic teachings, the ultimate goal is is an intolerant world ruled by an elite oligarchy that seeks to impose its rigid view of economics, morality and the social order on others.
In response, i pose the question , which side, liberal or conservative has challenged our catholic faith more. Which side is a proponent of free love which has created all sorts of great social reforms, which, with the help of their media friends have made it ok for such activity as children outside of wedlock , birth control, abortion, morning after pill, homosexuality, same sex marriage, etc etc. Nothing is taboo anymore. Its all good right. As long as i get to decide what is right and wrong, Im ok. Besides, once saved always saved so nothing i do in this life, will i have to answer for later. Its the “ME” society. I make the rules for my own life. No one should question what i do or tell me what is right and wrong. How dare anyone judge my behavior. Im sorry but Jesus, the bible, the church is all about telling us how we are to behave. Certain natural laws apply. Certain laws from God apply. When we make our own rules about what is right and wrong behavior we make ourselves gods.
Good morning. HEllo. Obama invaded Libya. What was that?
Bellasbane,