Priest: Ultimate Fighting is 'Murder'

[Abenadar]

I’ve already looked that part ages ago. All I’ve known it to speak out against is abortion, euthanasia, suicide, the killing of the innocent etc. It doesn’t speak anything on the issue of competitive combat so as long as it doesn’t deliberately promote murder. There is no human right being violated in these matches and in these sports.

From the Vatican’s catechism vatican.va/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a5.htm With a little critical thinking you’ll easily be able to understand good and just actions versus stupid ones.

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.

2269 The fifth commandment forbids doing anything with the intention of indirectly bringing about a person’s death. The moral law prohibits exposing someone to mortal danger without grave reason, as well as refusing assistance to a person in danger.

2288 Life and physical health are precious gifts entrusted to us by God. We must take reasonable care of them, taking into account the needs of others and the common good.

2290 The virtue of temperance disposes us to avoid every kind of excess: the abuse of food, alcohol, tobacco, or medicine. Those incur grave guilt who, by drunkenness or a love of speed, endanger their own and others’ safety on the road, at sea, or in the air.

Note, “drunkenness or a love of speed” are only examples in terms of endangering their own and others’ safety, easily applicable to the subject at hand.

2302 By recalling the commandment, "You shall not kill,"93 our Lord asked for peace of heart and denounced murderous anger and hatred as immoral.

2306 Those who renounce violence and bloodshed and, in order to safeguard human rights, make use of those means of defense available to the weakest, bear witness to evangelical charity, provided they do so without harming the rights and obligations of other men and societies. They bear legitimate witness to the gravity of the physical and moral risks of recourse to violence, with all its destruction and death.

2320 The murder of a human being is gravely contrary to the dignity of the person and the holiness of the Creator.

Christ was not only murdered, He was also beaten leading up to his death. We don’t only recognize his death, but his whole passion, as a violation of the fifth commandment.

Don’t think you’re the first anti-action/anti-adrenaline proponent I’ve run into.

Who said I’m either of those things? Perhaps you should stick with argument and fact about a specific subject rather than attempting to malign the person presenting the counter-argument by asserting lame and asinine assumptions.

I’ve met plenty of that same propaganda when I was younger and it never sat well with me.

Ah, the personal attacks continue. Now my words are “propaganda”. All I did was mention a critical reading of a catechism regarding the fifth commandment, now I’m spouting propaganda. Hey, look everybody, I’m Hermann Goering! Perhaps it never sat well with you because you’re too drunk on the wonderous, gory, detailed, beautifully drawn yet disgustingly gratuitous violence in anime to actually consider that there might be something wrong with A LOT of anime and your general love of violence.

While I never engaged in contact sports, I do know what it’s like to appreciate good action.

“Good action” is subjective…meanwhile, in MMA land you may appreciate the action, but that doesn’t make it “good”.

When I make comments such “bunching up and knitting” it’s really just one of my ways of saying that people like you

“People like me”?..We’ve already established that you don’t know me and that your assumptions about who you think I must be are asinine and waaay off the mark. You presume to talk about “people like me” from the sidelines. Yeah, this coming from you, somebody who never engaged in contact sports. You haven’t even asked if I’m speaking with the voice of experience on this subject! “People like me” indeed.

who speak out against this type of “violence”

Hahaha, with your quotation marks around the word violence you insinuate that MMA isn’t violence. Is it? Of course it is. Somebody is exhibiting some “stupidity”…lol.

are just folks who like living in bubbles.

I have a feeling you’d consider our Lord, the Blessed Virgin, and St. Joseph to be bubble-dwellers. After all, wasn’t it the Lord Who, while being arrested, told Peter to sheath his weapon. Now why’d He go and make Peter miss all the “good action” like that?

 

[Bengoshi]

Why don’t you just read what I wrote? I don’t think either is good. UFC seems worse to me. Just like raping a woman to death, or cutting a near-term child out of her womb is worse to me than just shooting her.

I challenge any of you to find official Church proclamations that say sport fighting is perfectly ok. You won’t find any. What you will find is a slew of authentic Church teaching which says boxing, UFC, and the like are not to be patronized in any way. I, naturally, ascribe to Church teaching. Why don’t the rest of you?

I’m sorry, but what a sissy thing to say! Where in the Bible or even in any RCC teaching is boxing or any fighting sport for that matter immoral? Let us be careful in branding something as immoral if there are no Scriptural references explicitly prohibiting it. Just because it was not promoted by Scripture or any church teaching it means that it’s prohibited.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

From the Vatican’s catechism vatican.va/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a5.htm With a little critical thinking you’ll easily be able to understand good and just actions versus stupid ones…

…Christ was not only murdered, He was also beaten leading up to his death. We don’t only recognize his death, but his whole passion, as a violation of the fifth commandment.

Nope, I still don’t see nor will I ever see anything to what you’re insinuating. First of all there’s no mortal danger when proper measures are taken beforehand. Secondly, fighting competitions do not violate human rights in that there are two consenting parties. Thirdly, you comparing Jesus’ death to stuff like MMA and boxing is hilarious.

Jesus was beaten down, restrained, and tortured without being given even half a chance to fight back (not that he would but that’s besides the point).

In respectable martial arts competitions, there are rules, referees, and regulations that ensure both safety and a fair fight. Meanwhile, the combatants are willing (perhaps even more than willing) skilled professionals.

If you can’t see how huge and Apples-to-Oranges comparison you are making then you’re blinder than a bat.

Who said I’m either of those things? Perhaps you should stick with argument and fact about a specific subject rather than attempting to malign the person presenting the counter-argument by asserting lame and asinine assumptions.

Ah, the personal attacks continue. Now my words are “propaganda”. All I did was mention a critical reading of a catechism regarding the fifth commandment, now I’m spouting propaganda. Hey, look everybody, I’m Hermann Goering! Perhaps it never sat well with you because you’re too drunk on the wonderous, gory, detailed, beautifully drawn yet disgustingly gratuitous violence in anime to actually consider that there might be something wrong with A LOT of anime and your general love of violence.

And perhaps you should read your own posts and see just how spot on I really am (and how hypocritical you are too). Seriously, look what you just said. You describe me as “too drunk on the wonderous, gory, detailed, beautifully drawn yet disgustingly gratuitous violence in anime” yet fail to realize you’re doing exactly what I’m accusing you of doing. You think I haven’t heard that same sappy song from other whiny parents and idiots like Jack Thompson? No matter how you look at it, you’re selling and spouting the same anti-violence/anti-action rhetoric they have. And for the record, I am actually proud to say that not only am I a “lover of violence”, I consider myself a connoisseur at the art of portraying such action. However, that does not mean I’m a homicidal maniac. In fact, one of my biggest peeves with the industry is that too often do they depict the gory type of violence against unwilling and unarmed victims. That’s the only thing I have little love for. However, be it in fiction or in real life, if two people wanna test their skills in some intense and hearty bout then let the games begin!

“Good action” is subjective…meanwhile, in MMA land you may appreciate the action, but that doesn’t make it “good”.

It doesn’t make it bad either. Your point (if you had any)?

“People like me”?..We’ve already established that you don’t know me and that your assumptions about who you think I must be are asinine and waaay off the mark. You presume to talk about “people like me” from the sidelines. Yeah, this coming from you, somebody who never engaged in contact sports. You haven’t even asked if I’m speaking with the voice of experience on this subject! “People like me” indeed.

I don’t need to know you to recognize what you’re selling. My point is your so-called “voice of experience” does not necessarily mean you would understand people who love action. In fact, your constant attacks on the things have proven that. You’re singing the same song as folks like Jack Thompson all right.

Hahaha, with your quotation marks around the word violence you insinuate that MMA isn’t violence. Is it? Of course it is. Somebody is exhibiting some “stupidity”…lol.

Now who’s the assuming one? I never said it wasn’t violent in the base sense of the word. I use quotation marks to signify one way a person views the word. I think it’s pretty much established that we have different ideas of it.

And for the record? Quoting other people’s words down to less than a sentence presents a huge risk in misquoting them. And you say I’m stupid…

I have a feeling you’d consider our Lord, the Blessed Virgin, and St. Joseph to be bubble-dwellers. After all, wasn’t it the Lord Who, while being arrested, told Peter to sheath his weapon. Now why’d He go and make Peter miss all the “good action” like that?

That was because Peter’s defense would interfere with Jesus’ divine plan for salvation.
As for the other two though, why not? I know a ton of parents who aren’t exactly appreciative of the daredevil lifestyles and preferences of my generation.

P.S.

If it means anything, I actually do have some experience in martial arts. My class was one time taught how to wield Kali sticks back in highschool for our PE. Back then I really loved the way I held that stick and felt a really awesome drive flowing through me every time I waved it around. I still practice some of the techniques sometimes (at least the ones I can still remember). I don’t know about you, but self-defense wasn’t the only thing reason my mind as to why I was practicing back then. I did it because just the thought of me being able to do such awesome moves was really, really cool.

That’s just how I feel. With or without an opponent.

 

[Milliardo]

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.

2269 The fifth commandment forbids doing anything with the intention of indirectly bringing about a person’s death. The moral law prohibits exposing someone to mortal danger without grave reason, as well as refusing assistance to a person in danger.

2288 Life and physical health are precious gifts entrusted to us by God. We must take reasonable care of them, taking into account the needs of others and the common good.

2290 The virtue of temperance disposes us to avoid every kind of excess: the abuse of food, alcohol, tobacco, or medicine. Those incur grave guilt who, by drunkenness or a love of speed, endanger their own and others’ safety on the road, at sea, or in the air.

Note, “drunkenness or a love of speed” are only examples in terms of endangering their own and others’ safety, easily applicable to the subject at hand.

2302 By recalling the commandment, "You shall not kill,"93 our Lord asked for peace of heart and denounced murderous anger and hatred as immoral.

2306 Those who renounce violence and bloodshed and, in order to safeguard human rights, make use of those means of defense available to the weakest, bear witness to evangelical charity, provided they do so without harming the rights and obligations of other men and societies. They bear legitimate witness to the gravity of the physical and moral risks of recourse to violence, with all its destruction and death.

2320 The murder of a human being is gravely contrary to the dignity of the person and the holiness of the Creator.

Christ was not only murdered, He was also beaten leading up to his death. We don’t only recognize his death, but his whole passion, as a violation of the fifth commandment.

Hhmm…so where in the Catechism does it specifically say it is against contact sport of any kind? None in the provisions cited does it, directly or indirectly, apply towards any contact sport. So, take your pick–would that be CCC 2265, 2269, 2288, 2290, 2302, 2306, or 2320? We could take each provision apart and I guarantee you, it will not apply to any contact sport. I, for instance, you cite 2269, your argument falls apart quickly–no contact sport has the intention in bringing, directly or indirectly, a person’s death. The key word here, if you notice, is wilfull intention. So that automatically rules out CCC 2269. How about 2288–oopps, no dice again. By having a referree and a physician at each and every match, the sports in question follow this carefully–reasonable care is applied in holding every match. How about 2290? Again, no go; same with 2288, by having a referree, judges and physicians, organizers see to it that there are no excessive moves that would place a person’s life in grave danger. We go then to 2302–so where again is the intention to kill in any of the sports in question? The closest you could get might probably be 2306; then again, as stated, no contestant of any of those sports join them for the simple sake of harming people. So again, no go. How about 2320? Well–do people murder in contact sports? As you can see, your application of the provisions towards contact sports is badly skewd. I’m afraid you apply the provisions too much. Not even the bishops nor the Pope himself have applied these provisions to any contact sport.

 

[shockerfan]

Oh, come on…! The object of any fight is “submission” by the most direct means, aka knockout. But if a fighter has to resort to tapping out, well, that’s “acceptable”. Nevertheless, the violence is purely gratuitous. You weren’t able to answer the charge that this type of fighting is gratuitious…And the reason you can’t say it isn’t is because it is!

Now I’m beginning to think you haven’t really watched mma matches lately. Ever heard of a guy named Royce Gracie? If memory serves me correctly, here was a guy who is a black belt in Jui Jitsu, who won just about all of his matches without knocking the other person out. His goal in every match was to submit his opponent by choke, arm-bar, leg-lock, whatever. He showed that you couldn’t be in the sport and just be a puncher.

Not that you really appear to care. I read the rebuttal by Milliardo to your contention that this sport violates the Church’s teaching on the 5th commandment, and I have to say his argument is much more compelling than yours.

I don’t expect you watch the sport, or like the sport, but if you are going to say that it somehow is a sin, then you need to have your facts straight, and I don’t think you do.

God Bless.

 

[WillieWonka]

I’m glad you were able to respond with such succinct, coherent, and persuasive arguments.

Thank you, but I didn’t provide an argument.

 

[Abenadar]

Thank you, but I didn’t provide an argument.

That’s the point.

 

[Abenadar]

Ok, I get it now. Any type of violence, including (or especially) MMA competitions (which include willing combattants in a “safe” environment) are perfectly fine because nobody is actually dying, even though the object of the fight is to inflict enough pain on the opponent to either incapacitate him or make him surrender. Hmm, ok, so much for the Catholic idea of ‘peace’.

Honestly, did you see the example given in the catechism that referenced a dangerous “love of speed”? Do you understand that that was an example that can be applied to many “extreme” sports? What’s the definition of “extreme” in terms of sports/activities? I’ll tell you: it means if you err or screw up, you will probably be seriously injured or dead. This relates to proximate physical danger, which is the goal, the aim, and the ultimate end of fighting. And if you think these willing combattants don’t the punishment, and aren’t seriously hurt by it, you’ve probably never been slucked across the face or broken bones doing something stupid…Probably. Unfortunately, for those of you who think that I’m some kind of peacenik, I wasn’t always so friendly and peaceful (in the Catholic sense of the word) and have experienced both. I was definitely a willing combattant at one point, and I put myself in danger…I also broke a knuckle and had a rib broken…By your books, was that ok to do? Are we to so recklessly engage in useless activities that by definition put us in immediate mortal danger? It’s nothing but getting a rush of adrenaline, which can be compared to a “love of speed” aka dangerous, gratuitous activity. How many saints were thrill-seekers? How many sought gratuitous violence for the base pleasure of it all? How many exchanged an eyes for eyes and teeth for teeth?

The catechism cannot cite every single example of right and wrong. If you are unable to understand the basic tennet of the body being a temple of the Holy Ghost, and are unable to apply very basic principles to specific examples that you’re curious about…perhaps you should keep reading the writings of the Church and the saints etc. I’ll see what I can find for you.

Shockerfan: you said:

submit his opponent by choke, arm-bar, leg-lock, whatever

And I have to ask…What does it matter? Just like wars, the object of fights is to SUBMIT THE OPPONENT by inflicting so much damage or pain (or both) that the opponent either cannot fight back, or won’t, realizing the futility of fighting back (aka tapping out). Unlike fights, however, wars generally have a specific desired aim for the common good and safety of citizens on both sides of the conflict (although this has often not been the case as we see with the deliberate murder of civilians, such as in Japan during WWII and the firebombing of Dresden, Germany, just to name a couple).

 

[rbiaca]

I challenge any of you to find official Church proclamations that say sport fighting is perfectly ok. You won’t find any. What you will find is a slew of authentic Church teaching which says boxing, UFC, and the like are not to be patronized in any way. I, naturally, ascribe to Church teaching. Why don’t the rest of you?

Could you pull up the Church teaching on bicyle polo. I want to know if it’s ok to watch bicyle polo.

I hope the Church has issued an opinion, otherwise, how will we know if we can watch it or not?

Thanks kindly.

 

[WillieWonka]

“Ok, I get it now. Any type of violence, including (or especially) MMA competitions (which include willing combattants in a “safe” environment) are perfectly fine because nobody is actually dying, even though the object of the fight is to inflict enough pain on the opponent to either incapacitate him or make him surrender. Hmm, ok, so much for the Catholic idea of ‘peace’.”

Correct.

 

[shockerfan]

Ok, I get it now. Any type of violence, including (or especially) MMA competitions (which include willing combattants in a “safe” environment) are perfectly fine because nobody is actually dying, even though the object of the fight is to inflict enough pain on the opponent to either incapacitate him or make him surrender. Hmm, ok, so much for the Catholic idea of ‘peace’.

Honestly, did you see the example given in the catechism that referenced a dangerous “love of speed”? Do you understand that that was an example that can be applied to many “extreme” sports? What’s the definition of “extreme” in terms of sports/activities? I’ll tell you: it means if you err or screw up, you will probably be seriously injured or dead. This relates to proximate physical danger, which is the goal, the aim, and the ultimate end of fighting. And if you think these willing combattants don’t the punishment, and aren’t seriously hurt by it, you’ve probably never been slucked across the face or broken bones doing something stupid…Probably. Unfortunately, for those of you who think that I’m some kind of peacenik, I wasn’t always so friendly and peaceful (in the Catholic sense of the word) and have experienced both. I was definitely a willing combattant at one point, and I put myself in danger…I also broke a knuckle and had a rib broken…By your books, was that ok to do? Are we to so recklessly engage in useless activities that by definition put us in immediate mortal danger? It’s nothing but getting a rush of adrenaline, which can be compared to a “love of speed” aka dangerous, gratuitous activity. How many saints were thrill-seekers? How many sought gratuitous violence for the base pleasure of it all? How many exchanged an eyes for eyes and teeth for teeth?

The catechism cannot cite every single example of right and wrong. If you are unable to understand the basic tennet of the body being a temple of the Holy Ghost, and are unable to apply very basic principles to specific examples that you’re curious about…perhaps you should keep reading the writings of the Church and the saints etc. I’ll see what I can find for you.

Shockerfan: you said:

And I have to ask…What does it matter? Just like wars, the object of fights is to SUBMIT THE OPPONENT by inflicting so much damage or pain (or both) that the opponent either cannot fight back, or won’t, realizing the futility of fighting back (aka tapping out). Unlike fights, however, wars generally have a specific desired aim for the common good and safety of citizens on both sides of the conflict (although this has often not been the case as we see with the deliberate murder of civilians, such as in Japan during WWII and the firebombing of Dresden, Germany, just to name a couple).

Lets see, according to your definition then driving cars, even though the use of seat belts might make it safer, is a violation of the 5th commandment, given the huge number of deaths due to car accidents every year. There are approximately 40,000 driving deaths every year. People get into cars willfully, and therefore put themselves at risk of death every time they do.

I guess we shouldn’t drive cars if we don’t want to put our souls at risk.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

And if you think these willing combattants don’t the punishment, and aren’t seriously hurt by it, you’ve probably never been slucked across the face or broken bones doing something stupid…Probably. Unfortunately, for those of you who think that I’m some kind of peacenik, I wasn’t always so friendly and peaceful (in the Catholic sense of the word) and have experienced both. I was definitely a willing combattant at one point, and I put myself in danger…I also broke a knuckle and had a rib broken…By your books, was that ok to do? Are we to so recklessly engage in useless activities that by definition put us in immediate mortal danger?

I had a ton of biking accidents as a kid which left me with at least a few couple really nasty gashes and got nearly run over thrice. Still, that never stopped me from having fun. Are you gong to say I was stupid and committing sin because I was constantly ‘putting myself in danger’ by running happily like a free boy? This is exactly the reason why I say you promote life inside a bubble. I said so before, just cuz you’ve had experience in fights it doesn’t mean you know what it’s like to have the heart of a thrill seeker/adventurer. Furthermore, to say that such activities are useless puts a lot of question into how much experience you really have. You do know martial arts are one of the most popular forms of exercise right?

Furthermore following your safety freak logic, professional cooking itself can be just as dangerous and “useless”. (I mean why play around with all those hot stoves and nasty knives when you can just order a take out or use a microwave? )

Besides, if you think every Catholic has the goal of being canonized a saint then you’re sadly naive. I’ll be happy with just purgatory thanks if it means I won’t have to constantly coop myself up in a secluded convent. Your idea of ‘peace’ is one fine reason why so many of my generation find religion a big killjoy and a harbinger of boredom.

Then again, I’ve seen priests who skateboard so I guess it means that not even all the religious would agree that “love of speed” is a sin.

 

[WillieWonka]

Lets see, according to your definition then driving cars, even though the use of seat belts might make it safer, is a violation of the 5th commandment, given the huge number of deaths due to car accidents every year. There are approximately 40,000 driving deaths every year. People get into cars willfully, and therefore put themselves at risk of death every time they do.

I guess we shouldn’t drive cars if we don’t want to put our souls at risk.

And some of those trips may even be gratuitous.

Makes you wonder about our ancestors who left the cozy fire, picked up a goatskin and spear, and headed off into the unknown.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

I guess we shouldn’t drive cars if we don’t want to put our souls at risk.

You can also throw in mountain biking, roller-coaster riding, whitewater rafting, or even just swinging at the local playground.

 

[Milliardo]

Honestly, did you see the example given in the catechism that referenced a dangerous “love of speed”?

If we take your notion seriously, then obviously such races as Le Mans, Formula 1, etc. would also fall into this category, right? Racing is a love for speed. So, does the Catechism apply to such sports as well? Obviously, you seem to be on the extreme side of things; it seems that any form of dangerous sport would automatically be labeled as against the provisions cited. No bishop, not even the Pope, has gone that far as you have, obviously. So why do you apply it to such things when the Catholic Church itself hasn’t?

I’ll tell you: it means if you err or screw up, you will probably be seriously injured or dead.

Human errors happen; even in flying, for instance, one can end up dead. Let’s take some other sport–soccer, for instance. an accidental trip–not intentional–can lead to injury or even worse. So, by your notion, should we then put soccer in the same category?

By your books, was that ok to do? Are we to so recklessly engage in useless activities that by definition put us in immediate mortal danger?

Again, sport by itself is putting one’s self to harm. We can cite other sports, such as skiing, snowboarding, skateboarding, roller skating/rollerblading/surfing…the list can go on and on. Each sport is a rush in adrenaline. Heck, American football is a very dangerous sport. Why not put it in the same category? See, you’re simply being extreme to the point of absurdity. Sports is a rush in adrenaline–basketball, football, baseball, tennis–all thrive in that rush. All have the potential for injuries.

 

[cyberfrogX]

Perhaps we should ask ourselves what our Lord would do?
I would like to provide a few things to think about…

It has been said :
Those who live by the sword, die by the sword

And we know from the early church fathers that christians despised the “sport” of the gladiator

Now I would propose an analogy :
Two consenting men agree to deal each other bodily harm until their aggressions are satisfied
Two consenting men agree to perform acts of “love” on each other until their lusts are satisfied

I am not God, and I can see no clear thing saying that competitive sports are sinful,
But we know that injuring another intentionally is a sin.

So it is up to us to submit to God. We are aloud every pleasure he sanctions.
I would hope everyone of you would consider what God would approve of
If you still think that such things are okay and blessed by God then let that be yout opinion
But should you dare to insult someone so rudely who is just talking about peace,
Please consider this :
The difference between a saint and a doormat is that the saint stands up to aggression when the well being of others is on the line

Please be kind to one another brothers and sisters
Peace of Christ be with you all

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

Perhaps we should ask ourselves what our Lord would do?
I would like to provide a few things to think about…

It has been said :
Those who live by the sword, die by the sword

And we know from the early church fathers that christians despised the “sport” of the gladiator

Because it resulted in deliberate murder and exploited unwilling participants. Professional martial arts competitions have neither. Heck even I wouldn’t mind fantasizing myself in the middle of a coliseum/arena and going one-on-one with a respectable adversary as long as a fair fight in insured beforehand.

Now I would propose an analogy :
Two consenting men agree to deal each other bodily harm until their aggressions are satisfied
Two consenting men agree to perform acts of “love” on each other until their lusts are satisfied

Your analogy is flawed right at the first sentence. People don’t fight to satisfy their aggressions. That’s what dummies are for. (Heck that’s what I play video games for ). They do it, like in all other competitive sports/games, to measure their skills.

 

[Abenadar]

“Ok, I get it now. Any type of violence, including (or especially) MMA competitions (which include willing combattants in a “safe” environment) are perfectly fine because nobody is actually dying, even though the object of the fight is to inflict enough pain on the opponent to either incapacitate him or make him surrender. Hmm, ok, so much for the Catholic idea of ‘peace’.”

Correct.

Suuuuuure, buddy…Keep dreaming. You’d think that a contest so reminiscent of gladiatorial days would evoke revulsion from Catholics, who suffered so much in arenas. The violence from an MMA fight is unnecessary and gratuitous…All to entertain the mob, which, as it happens, includes you! Small wonder…

 

[Abenadar]

Lets see, according to your definition then driving cars, even though the use of seat belts might make it safer, is a violation of the 5th commandment, given the huge number of deaths due to car accidents every year. There are approximately 40,000 driving deaths every year. People get into cars willfully, and therefore put themselves at risk of death every time they do.

I guess we shouldn’t drive cars if we don’t want to put our souls at risk.

Excuse me, shockerfan, but apparently you have forgotten what I have written in previous posts which have everything to do with your silly and illogical post above. I ask you, what is the purpose of getting into a motor vehicle? Is it to inflict as much damage as possible on other motorists in order for them to get off the road? Of course not, and to think that you actually offered this example as “proof” of anything just goes to show that you’re not even trying to understand my point…It’s argument for the sake of…you guessed it, argument!

People get in cars in order to SAFELY and quickly go from point A to point B. People step into an arena to HURT PEOPLE AND MAKE THEM SUBMIT! See the difference?

While there are deaths in vehicles every day, the OBJECT of driving is not to kill or be killed (or injure or be injured, for that matter).

 

[blaskoman]

why does this priest not wear his collar?