.
 |
| http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=4680931748511&set=o.161158463898281&type=1&theater |
His
statement is perhaps the most confusing of the labels, it is not clear if he
was irritated seeing catholic (an anti-RH: a pro-life) with guns or Catholic at
war ("just war") but anyways, one common denominator to all Filipino
Neo-Atheist is to play Dawkin's dung with their bare-hand while sniffing his
fart in public arena: They do literally anything to shift attention away from
the central focus of the issue, here the issue is RH bill - an attempt to
legalize the wholesale slaughter of pre-born-human
beings for selfish convenience.
Their
premise is something like this:
"You're not really pro-life unless you
..."
> are against in any kinds of war (even
‘Just war’);
> consider guns/firearms as an inherently evil, nothing more nothing less;
> work to safeguard "gay" (i.e., pervert) rights;
> are a strict vegetarian and wear no leather;
> and do a thousand other things,
> ANYTHING besides opposing abortion!
> consider guns/firearms as an inherently evil, nothing more nothing less;
> work to safeguard "gay" (i.e., pervert) rights;
> are a strict vegetarian and wear no leather;
> and do a thousand other things,
> ANYTHING besides opposing abortion!
Pro-life towards guns:
Guns / Fire Arms as inherently evil?
Wow!
We took away the guns; they used knives.
We took away the knives; they used clubs.
We took away the clubs, they used hammers.
We took away the hammers; they used rocks.
We tried to take away the rocks, but there were too many rocks to take away.
Suddenly it dawned on us that the problem wasn't the choice of weapon, it was fallen human nature. (by anonymous)
We took away the knives; they used clubs.
We took away the clubs, they used hammers.
We took away the hammers; they used rocks.
We tried to take away the rocks, but there were too many rocks to take away.
Suddenly it dawned on us that the problem wasn't the choice of weapon, it was fallen human nature. (by anonymous)
A weapon doesn't do the action; the person holding the weapon does. A weapon is an inanimate object; it doesn't act on its own. So in short, the problem was never the guns. The problem was the intentions of the people using the guns. Take away the guns, and you've still got people who will find a way still to perform malicious, intentionally harmful acts, guns or no guns.
Example,
look at a knife. A knife can be used for two things: to cause harm or to
protect. So, although guns is a tool to kill, it could be used for
police/military action (if absolutely necessary) to protect the innocent.
For
him guns are inherently evil nothing more nothing less (LOL). FYI It's
not the weapon it's the person.
(Postscript: Context should be limit in Firearms to Military/Police personnel)
Another possible interpretation of this photo is to accuse that pro-lifers are 'inconsistent' by trying to paint them as a bunch of warmongers.
Renounces all Military Force (War)
as incompatible/antithetical to Christianity?
These peculiar
pro-lifers argue that the unborn child has an inalienable, absolute right to
life that cannot be violated under any circumstances. And yet, when it comes to
acts of war (at least within a just war), the person’s inviolable right to
life goes out the door.
Nice.
Carried out at the most appealing levels!
The primary problem with this question is that it attempts to create a moral equivalency between Abortion and Just War. This is worse than a comparison of apples and oranges: They allege that a person simply cannot be 'truly pro-life' if he or she in any way, shape, or form supports a strong national defense.
The primary problem with this question is that it attempts to create a moral equivalency between Abortion and Just War. This is worse than a comparison of apples and oranges: They allege that a person simply cannot be 'truly pro-life' if he or she in any way, shape, or form supports a strong national defense.
However, the accuser deliberately obscures the central points of the comparison:
• Most importantly, the intentions behind
abortion and national warfare are fundamentally different. Abortion is a pure
act of aggression that seeks to kill innocent and helpless human beings,
primarily for comfort and convenience. A just war seeks to destroy
purely military targets and is carried out against well-armed troops that can
defend themselves quite adequately.
• The intention of a reactive war is to
defend one's country and way of life. The purpose of abortion is also to
preserve one's lifestyle, but abortion is anoffensive, not defensive act.
 |
| Nazi Soldier shooting a mother and her Child |
The case of WWII Holocaust, during that holocaust, an estimated 50,000,000 people was slaughtered. Should we have intervened with military force in that holocaust? Absolutely, YES. When there are circumstances wherein human beings are being systematically destroyed by a national power, it seems like Just War against that national power is justified. (And if the war were just, then you are "defending" or protecting). [UN intervention in East Timor and in Kosovo is a good example].
In
the end, they failed to see the contrasts between a defensive war
against an armed enemy with the offensive war against the unarmed
and innocent pre-born child through abortion.
(Postscript:Although
the author would like to emphasize that there are many more alternative to war
today and mechanism to mediate conflicts, this section is not intended to show
'war' as the only option and all 'war' is licit.)
Helpful Topics:
Catechism
of the Catholic Church on legitimate defense by
military force
Related
Topic: Religion
is invariably violent?
Bro. Is he directly addressing to you?
ReplyDelete:) I got this photo from the group that I am in.
ReplyDeleteand perhaps as a Catholic it is my obligation to refute this.
Well that idiot now surely belongs to the Atheist F*ckturds of the World. Excellent rebuttal!
ReplyDeleteThanks Bro. Jun :)
ReplyDelete