>>621772
>God will do everything for you.
Not something I ever said. Not something I meant, either. You're not only injecting ideas into what I said, you are completely misunderstanding what I AM saying. Whether it's deliberate, or you just cannot get past your hatred of everything (you think) I said, I don't know, but I would recommend you go back and clarify what you actually read and then dissect your opposition to that.
>that's pretty prideful
Ad hominem: The last defence of the scurrilous. Fine, you're right, I'm not making judgements about your faith, but I am telling you what it definitely sounds like.
>Are you ? Can you, creature, understand his plans ?
"Mystic brain"?! Where the actual fug are you getting this insanity? I wasn't telling you what God IS doing. How do you EVEN get that from what I wrote?
I was accusing you of being SO infatuated by western civilisation and thus wanting to defend it SO MUCH that even if God came and told you "It's done", you'd keep on fighting to preserve it. Maan, learn to READ!
>Jesus was pacific, not a pacifist.
Where are the proofs? Go on. Prove it WITHOUT relying on a whip of cords.
Hard-mode: without relying on the Old Testament.
>With your passiveness defeatism statement you can't be a catholic.
Gee, so I guess none of the earliest Christians were Catholics, either, and you're accusing all those martyrs who willingly went to their deaths at the hands of the vengeful and cruel of being "your daily dose of faggotry".
Interesting.
Well, afterall, they never took up swords to defend the Christian community, did they? Or do you know otherwise? I wonder how their God whom they so eagerly served even unto death would feel about your accusation.
>>621811
>Romans 13:1-4
Did you even read it yourself? How do you think that has ANY bearing on "kill a commie for Jesus"? Wouldn't Paul instead be saying, "Allow the authorities deal with the commies, you just don't be evil"? Isn't Paul basically saying, "remain peaceful, do good, submit to the gubment"? Or do you have some weird oneness pentecostal interpretation of that passage?
As for Aquinas, again, I am not sure you are EITHER reading properly your own text, or even arguing against me but some strawman you've invented to argue against. JUST AS Paul says, Aquinas says the same:
>Now the care of the common good is entrusted to persons of rank having public authority: wherefore they alone, and not private individuals, can lawfully put evildoers to death. (ibid Art.3)
He emphatically argues, just as Paul does, that it is the AUTHORITIES who do the execution of the wicked. What, pray tell, do you think you're arguing against? Have I ever said murderers cannot be killed by the law? Have I ever argued against gubments?
No, it is YOU who has the argument with God – via Aquinas and Paul – for (((you))) (and, let's be VERY clear, I speak to those against whom "we leftist cockolds" are arguing) who argued in favour of being able to go all "street gang" on antifa.
Aquinas and Paul support me, because they, rightly argue, that THAT IS NOT YOUR JOB, IT IS THE JOB OF GOD'S APPOINTED "AUTHORITIES". And you are not them.
Do you understand now?
Do you understand that all this time, "we leftist cockolds" are arguing against "Christian vigilante-ism".
What, in particular are you arguing for?