[jammies]

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

Okay, to the first bolded part, come on dude.
I know the difference, it was a simple mistake. Shoot me.

Why not just say, "Oh, you're right, Paul was never the Pope so I guess when I was trying to refute your point by claiming he was given the authority by Jesus to speak for him, I was wrong." What you're doing instead is pretending your argument is still valid, but that you just got an unimportant detail incorrect. There's a large difference.

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

As for the second bolded part, I can't. But my point was, in the teachings of the Catholic Church, Jesus granted Peter and all Popes after him the authority to make decisions on these types of things. So a Pope endorsing the rules of justifiable wars is, in the teachings of the Catholic Church, just as good as if Jesus had said it.
This is one school of thought, and there are many Christian Sects that don't share the same thinking.

So in other words, you can't point to any quote of Jesus's where he was all gung-ho for war, but because the Church says it's ok, it's ok. What if the Church said slavery was ok - would that make slavery acceptable as well? For that's exactly what the Church DID say at one time. Is the Pope infallible even when he contradicts a previous Pope?

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

My original point was that people often try to disprove someone's faith, or argue the validity of it by saying things like "Well if you belive in Jesus, then you're a hypocrite for doing such and such". But often times they are substituting their own understanding, or interpretation of what they think that person believes. That's the problem, applying your own definitions to someone else's morality.

I'm not applying MY definitions to anything, I'm pointing out that Jesus says one thing and his followers do something else. Here are Jesus's words:

"You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.' But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles."

Does this seem vague to you? Does this seem like Jesus is saying you can resort to violence to right perceived injustice? Was he just kidding when he advocates pacifism? Is there any possible way you can "interpret" this to mean that anything other than strict non-violence is what he is looking for?

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

I'm just trying to show that arguments like "Well if this guy believes in Jesus, he's a hypocrite for building weapons" are inherently flawed due to the multiple interpretions possible.

You can interpret the Gospels and be just flat wrong, which is where your argument falls down. Jesus didn't want people fighting, killing, or going to war, no matter what. He specifically preaches against it on multiple occasions. Claiming to follow his teachings while doing the opposite of what he teaches is hypocrisy, and generations of apologists, interpreters and Popes don't change that.