Consume Product

This came up in a conversation with a protestant dispensationalist of sorts.

They were correct to point out, that it is a commonly held Catholic prophecy that the "Jews" will be converted in the End Times:

> The Church Fathers and Saints have consistently upheld this view. An impressive list of authorities includes Tertullian, Origen, St. Hilary, St. Ambrose, St. John Chrysostom, St. Jerome, St. Cyril of Alexandria, St. Gregory the Great, and St. Thomas Aquinas. St. Cyril of Alexandria stated that "towards the end of time, Our Lord Jesus Christ will effect the reconciliation of His former persecutor Israel with Himself."

Hence it was argued that strains of "Nazism" that seek total eradication of the Jews will not be successful.

(I don't know if this was ever "really" a goal of "Nazis": while there is frustration with certain "wayward Jews", or a desire for capital punishment to be applied to certain criminal Jews, frequently I thought the goal for "Natsocs" would be suppression of Jews and or explusion mostly.)

That's all fine and well, although I don't know how this translates to a support of Israel or the current false religion of Judaism that fails to recognize Christ as the Messiah.

Pope St. Pius X stated of Zionism in 1904: "We cannot give approval to this movement. We cannot prevent the Jews from going to Jerusalem — but we could never sanction it."

The traditional Good Friday prayer calls the Jews "pefidious", from the Latin perfidus ("faithless").

Hence Catholics have traditionally opposed Zionism and the false "Judaism" that "Jews" today practice.

(The Vatican 2 revolution has been in our view a non-Catholic breakaway from Catholicism which has opposed these traditional teachings)

So, from a traditional Catholic standpoint, it should seem clear where Catholics stand on these issues (and which is documented in greater depth probably by posters like "CrusaderPepe").

Since presumably also protestants must have often shared these views in the past, I guess my question is: where do protestants come in with their confusion on these issues?

(With "Catholics" today, they probably get false views from subverted leadership, their own personal misunderstanding, or sinful inclinations leading to delusion, presumably?)

I did not grow up with any special leanings on these topics, but they seemed to follow pretty logically from clusters of thoughts like that if Christianity (or Catholicism specifically) claims to be exclusively the "one true religion", then Judaism is a false religion. If people liked "Christendom" or States being Catholic, then we would not be seeking for Zionism or to make States Jewish, but for Israel to be instead a "Christian (Catholic) nation".

So, I was just curious if you have thoughts on this topic, have common dispensationalist false arguments to bring up to debunk, or if you have any comments on what helped you to understand things more clearly on these topics.

During the final showdown, Supergirl stops Ruthye from killing Krem (the villain who murdered her family) to save her innocence and spare her the psychological burden of vengeance. As Ruthye runs away from the scene back to the spaceship, Supergirl gleefully stabs Krem repeatedly to death with a sword. In the original "Supergirl: Woman of Tomorrow" comic, Supergirl does not kill Krem but instead banishes him to the Phantom Zone.

"The message" I see in this scene is the hypocrisy of the modern State, which tells people that killing is bad, that you're not strong enough to do it and that you'll hate yourself for it afterward ... and then the State sets a compound full of women and children on fire; or nukes a hospital or a school with a $4m Tomahawk missile, only to launch ANOTHER missile to kill the first responders looking for survivors.

*"Yeah, don't kill your enemies, folks. You're not cut out for it and you'll hate yourself. Suffer your persecutors and every injustice with patience. Vote harder or whatever."*

The fact that Supergirl uses a sword -- a symbol of the State's strength -- to kill the villain further supports this interpretation. Another thing is that the whole "adventure" started because Ruthye wanted vengeance and went looking for someone strong enough to help her. In other words, she went to appeal to the "State" (Supergirl) for justice. Supergirl didn't care about getting justice for Ruthye, but because the villain later happened to poison her dog, THEN she agrees to help find the guy so SHE can get vengeance for her dog.

*... so the dog's life is worth more than the lives of Ruthye's parents?*

Really? Is that the message? It actually echoes something I've said before, which is that nothing changes until our pain becomes their pain. The governor of Mass. only clamped down on drunk drivers after his daughter was killed by one. Congress only banned banks from stacking overdraft fees after a congressman's daughter was forced to pay thousands in stacked overdraft fees. It was only until Supergirl's dog was poisoned that Supergirl gave a damn to stop the gang of marauding terrorists.

They either didn't think through this script or James Gunn really is that much of a piece of shit. Likely both. The whole movie is fucked up and degenerate, but that ending really is that intellectually offensive.

I hardly ever watch sports, but usually enjoy the world cup, rooting for the white teams. I didn't catch much of the one 4 years ago, but prior to that the Scandinavian teams, England, France and even the US were comprised of almost all whites, and other countries looked as you would expect. This year every game I watch is niggers. Found my self rooting for Iran one match because they at least all looked Iranian and hadn't bought niggers. Make niggers play for African teams only, I dont care where they live.