Islam is growing because of a weak church. With this I would like to add an excellent article written by my father, Walid Shoebat, on how evangelical leaders are capitulating to the homosexual agenda.

So how much will the Evangelical movement in the United States go to please the LGBT agenda?

When Shoebat.com posted this video on four homosexual wrestlers who raped two boys calling for a death penalty for these rapists, it upset one blaspheming homosexual and Right Wing Watch. These taunted the Evangelical movement causing an uproar with top level leaders calling on them to denounce Shoebat.com. They quickly lined up to show their support and denounced Shoebat.com for calling for the “death penalty” for gay rapists.

Several Evangelical leaders began hurling denunciations and articles against our infamous Theodore Shoebat for his views calling for the death penalty for rapists and child molesters.

According to these Evangelical leaders, calling for the death penalty for gay rapists, gay child molesters is  ‘unchristian’. The heavyweights from Calvinist John Piper to Dr. Michael Brown, Peter LaBarbera (1), Matt Barber and others were irate at Theodore’s remarks.

Who controls these leaders? One major gay activist who wraps Evangelical scholars around his finger gives himself the blasphemous title as “Joe My God,” so that when they twitter him they would blaspheme calling him “My God” instead of Christ. The trick stems from when Caesar wanted the Christian world to address him as kyrios (My lord) which St. Paul denounced by stating “that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord” (Philippians 2:11), that is that Christ is Kyrios not Caesar.

But now, this sodomite blasphemer, Joe, has become their god instead.

To please Joe the Blasphemer they go as far as lining up to denounce the young Shoebat for calling for the death penalty to even twisting arms to scrub and edit out Theodore’s contribution in an anti-gay documentary.

Brown accepted to debate with the young Theodore. It would not be the first time that kid faced the goliaths who now unify their voice to denounce the young man. Brown wrote:

“It is my privilege to work with godly leaders throughout America and around the world, a good number of whom are frontline, fearless Christians who stand firmly against homosexual activism, and every single one of them would join me in renouncing Theodore Shoebat’s words … “

Notice “around the world”. Does Brown work with the Coptic leadership in Egypt or the Orthodox  throughout the world all of whom would denounce Theodore?

Such huff-and-puff says that only the Evangelicals rule and have a monopoly on global Christian theology.

It is this type of rhetoric that should infuriate Christians worldwide. TD Jakes, an anti-Trinity heretic whom Brown supports and he would not condemn, much have goliaths join him to denounce Jakes, but Theodore?

I raised a David, not a Goliath.

The young man needs to be destroyed by any means, not just by the sodomites but by the Evangelical clergy as well United Against Theodore.

However, had this controversy been in Russia, Egypt’s Copts, Serbian Christians, Polish Christians … and they will join Theodore not Brown and his ilk. Christianity in the view of these has a monopoly where only the Evangelical mega industry sets the rules on biblical interpretation. The Church, the Gospel, the nation … everything, to these now exists to defend the rights of sodomites from legalizing punishments against them. This is the whole crux of the matter, that is, American brand of modern evangelicalism is the gospel.

It is not.

While Extremes go on both sides of the fence. If one calls for putting all gays in concentration camps is an extreme. But to also say that Jesus forbade capital punishment for sodomites is also another extreme.

Their messenger Dr. Brown was sent to do this mission and started an unsolicited assault under the headline “No Theodore, Jesus did not kill gays” calling the video “very troubling video“:

“Theodore’s  words [Jesus killed gays] do not represent Jesus, they do not represent the spirit or letter of the New Testament, and they do not represent His true followers.”

The debate on national radio between young Theodore and the seminarian goliath Michael Brown has been set on March 7th, 2016 2-3 PM eastern time.

Did Jesus kill gays? Nothing was ever said in this silly half-baked article that in the Bible it is as clear as the sun, Jesus killed the sodomites. Most modern theologians intentionally overlook and refuse to disclose that some of the best passages of scripture ever used regarding the Trinity and the Theophany is within the context when Christ completely annihilated the sodomites.

Anyone who denies this ask them: was it Christ Who met with Abraham and announced the destruction of Sodom? In Genesis Abraham is visited by three figures, one of whom he refers to as “My Lord” (Genesis 18:3), and Who Scripture calls “the LORD” (Genesis 18:17).

No sane theologian would argue that this person wasn’t Christ. After much feasting, Christ and the other two men left Abraham to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah (see Genesis 18:21-22). Christ even referred to His meeting with Abraham in the New Testament when He said:“Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day, and he saw it and was glad” (John 8:56, also see St. Gregory as recorded by St. Aquinas, Catena Aurea). It was so clear in scripture that it was Christ Who killed ‘the gays’:

“Then the LORD [the Son] rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the LORD [the Father] out of heaven (Genesis 19:24)”

All of this scripture was completely ignored and is rarely if ever used by these losers. Why do I say that they are “losers”? It is because the sodomites (and unlike in the east) they have won and the American church completely lost for not trusting in God’s judgment and for favoring American politics.

Yet this poorly written article which represents these leaders stance is from a man who touts himself “a scholar” was unable to see this?

All he they conclude was that executing sodomites “does not represent the spirit or letter of the New Testament”.

Really?

It was the Holy Spirit who spoke through Paul in Romans 1 which taught that sodomites are “worthy of death” and Paul was basing this on what we discussed so far when the Theophany of Christ rained fire and brimstone from His Father.

The American brand of Evangelicals and even some of the Catholic Novus Ordo seminarians’ are not Orthodox and they do not like the methods in Russia or Poland or in the nation of Georgia. They always describe them as harsh. But at the same time, they ‘discretely’ wish to have certain laws passed in the United States to halt the LGBT agenda. The difference between the two spheres is that Evangelicals are spreading an American brand of the Gospel which many times isolates New Testament from Old Testament in areas that they should not.

For example, what happens to: “If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.” (Leviticus 20:13)

CARM, an Evangelical website gives the typical argument one hears in the American brand of Evangelical Christianity which sounds like this:

“There can be no doubt that the Old Testament condemns homosexuality as a detestable act worthy of death and that God has deemed it to be an “abomination” to Him. Of course, the Old Testament Law is no longer in effect in this area because the Messiah has come, and we are not under a theocratic governmental system. Therefore, we are not to execute homosexuals. We are to pray for them and their repentance, so they might find salvation in Christ.

Yet such modern Christians always argue for the death penalty, but only for murder.

But arguing for the death penalty as “a life for a life” could be argued as “an eye for an eye”. This would debunk the notion that all Levitical laws are obsolete. How could these re-explain “vengeance is mine” along with their support of the death penalty and that we should not uproot the tares lest we also uproot the wheat?

This is the crux of the whole issue.

But one can’t have it both ways.

It is these types of arguments they use to defend against capital punishments for the sodomites while they would rummage using the same arguments we use to finding theological solutions for their support of the death penalty.

And how do we reconcile such issues?

The solution to this is simple, uproot the tare only if it harms not the wheat, and do not uproot the eye for vengeance (2) and punish by passing laws to apply justice.

To argue against any death penalty for all sorts of evils, we ask: is the life of the victim and of the criminal put on the same level? Obviously, to go against this argument that the life of the victim is to be put on the same level of the criminal would mean that we do away with all the laws.

This would be absurd. This also proves beyond doubt that these who advocate that we cannot have an allowance for the death penalty for certain homosexuals are not using proper interpretation.

To go against the principle that the two (just and unjust) are equal because Christ requires us to forgive each and every infraction would mean no prison is necessary and all lawless be let on the loose to consume more victims. The LGBT agenda is the process of corrupting the innocent in order to go against the natural order.

Yet this modern mentality stated this “Why do we follow some Levitical laws and not others regarding things like [punishing] homosexuality and eating shellfish?” In other words, they state that Levitical “civil laws” are completely done with, except of course the current law of death penalty for murder. In other words, the biblical laws had to match American civil laws and anti-homosexual laws were lumped up with Kosher laws.

Romans is clearly stating that homosexuals are “worthy of death” (see Romans 1:26-32) and it is impossible to refute Romans 13 which clearly justifies the death penalty “princes are not a terror to the good work, but to the evil …  if thou do that which is evil, fear: for he beareth not the sword in vain. For he [the ruler] is God’s minister: an avenger to execute wrath upon him that doth evil” (Romans 13:1-4).

If only the death penalty is to be applied strictly to “murder” how then can one respond, that despite this being pretty straightforward (3) the very New Testament (which Brown demands we exclusively use), in Romans 1:32 clearly teaches not just that the wicked deserve death but also the promoters deserve death too: “Who, having known the justice of God, did not understand that they who do such things, are worthy of death: and not only they that do them, but they also that consent to them that do them.”

Imagine, it is not only murderers or homosexuals, but the promoters of such evil acts also deserve death.

John Piper wastes much time in his article to show how scripture did away with the “Ceremonial precepts” (the ceremonial law). While we all agree that dealing with forms of worshipping God and with ritual cleanness and judicial precepts (such as those in Exodus 21) came into existence only with the Law of Moses and were only temporary. But this never excluded the use of civil laws by either Orthodox or even Protestant theologians. While the judicial laws ceased to bind with the advent of Christ, it was not a mortal sin to enforce them either. Thomas Aquinas for example says, “if a sovereign were to order these judicial precepts to be observed in his kingdom, he would not sin.”

Yet only Theodore sinned for calling for the death penalty?

Although Aquinas believed the specifics of the Old Testament judicial laws were no longer binding, he taught that the judicial precepts contained universal principles of justice that reflected natural law. Thus some scholars refer to his views on government as “General Equity Theonomy”.

This is far from our modern Americanized application, where they call for, and completely make obsolete  Old Testament’s “civil law”. Such laws were in use in Christendom from time immemorial from when Constantine established Christian governance. Christianity is not how some Evangelical websites assert which is more of a Waldensian interpretation where these denounced the death penalty as being wrong in all times. CARM for example asserts that such laws are “for Israel only”.

Were only Jews allowed to punish sodomy while the Christian only needs to keep the Levitical 10% tithing,  since this is necessary for the Evangelical mega industry? Nice.

If Jesus told Peter to sheath his sword, does this mean “no swords are ever allowed”? This also would be an extreme.

It is also an extreme to think that “Jesus would never whip gays” had they been in the Temple.

Insisting (as Michael does) that Jesus whipped only the animals and is how He drove the money changers is also rather a stretch.

Did the money changers simply flee running after the sheep and pigeons? To say that Jesus would never whip the sodomites begs another question: instead of using a leather whip He used a Fire whip and added some Brimstone and killed each and every one of the evil sodomites at Sodom and Gomorrah.

And to what level are these so-called scholars going to silence free speech?

Brown was irate and is calling on all scholars to join him in his denunciation of Theodore Shoebat for saying that Jesus, had he seen sodomites in the Temple, He would have killed them.

Brown says he is not on a “vendetta” mission against Theodore after making claims we had been attacking him, even though he had expressed anger suspecting we have written articles against him. When asked to show proof, he was empty handed. We spoke and he apologized. Whether he was on a vendetta or not you decide (4).

“Jesus” argues Brown would not even whip such reprobates since He never committed any acts of violence according to Isaiah 53:9. “The prophet Isaiah tells us explicitly that Jesus did not get violent” says Brown.

The method these modern seminarians use is always the same: “Theodore’s words do not represent the New Testament”.

The problem with many of today’s theologians is that they strike a line with a pen and it takes ten pages to fix it. First of all, a serious scholar should never isolate everything based on the New Testament while we throw out the entire Old Testament. Did Jesus strictly want us to follow the New Testament?

Or did Jesus want us to follow the Old Testament as well, but in light of the New Testament?

To use only the New Testament is the tricks used by cults. Why then restrict all theological arguments to only the New Testament?

It is to promote a specific theological bent for a political purpose.

Angling oneself under the modern motto ‘Jesus loves gays and He would never advocate the death penalty for gays’ not even for aggressive sodomites who rape, is today’s motto. To make his argument stick, that Jesus would never use the whip on men, Mr. Brown referenced a prophecy in Isaiah 53:9 that “no violence is found in Him (the Messiah”.

It is easy to just jot such nonsense, but again, it takes more to refute it. The Hebrew word for “violence” in this verse is “Hamas” which is ‘unjust’ or ‘malicious violence’ as evidenced in every single verse that used “Hamas” in the entire Scripture. Yet Michael argued:

If Jesus had whipped people bloody, that would have been violence. Instead, He overthrew tables and drove out the vendors, using a whip on the cattle. So, I’ll take Isaiah’s word for this rather than Theodore’s.

In Brown’s poorly written article, the whole essence of Jesus driving the moneychangers is missed.

Just as Christ was the one who poured fire and brimstone on Sodom, here it was Christ Who used His miraculous power in driving such a number of men before him, with so small and insignificant a weapon “scourge of small cords” to cleanse the Temple.

Michael belabors ridiculous issues while ignoring the significant.

I ask every evangelical: had an LGBT parade dancing in the nude, came into their church, would the ushers not drive them out of their temple? So how about if it was Christ with an LGBT parade coming to the Temple, while He threw the moneychangers, would He or any Levite for that matter stand by idle?

Should we not draw conclusions from Scripture on how to deal with sodomites?

This is the world we live in where everyone asks “show me in scripture” as to discount any reasonable argument. Show me in scripture where in a baptismal you had crazies jolting?

Michael has a neo-charismatic approach to everything and speaks with such authority that when he says something, that it is God who says it. Followers who are not apt to using biblical scrutiny usually speak with such authority where Michael on the phone with me says “God told me” this, and “God told me” that.

I urge him to show us from two thousand years of Church history where such lingo was the norm?

It is a clear violation of the third commandment (Exodus 20:7) and is usually the language of neo-charismatic loons. These exist plentifully today and we have educated maniacs like John Piper who claims he hears God speaks to him which even the acclaimed Protestant theologian Jonathan Edwards warns:

“…Scripture strongly impressed on the mind, are no sure signs of their being revelations from heaven: for I have known such impressions [to] fail, and prove vain.”

Even Catholic Bill O’Reilly says God told him to write his heretical book “Killing Jesus”. The latter is proven from the devil for his book is littered with blasphemies saying that Christ never spoke from the Cross. Brown in this video (also you can see him @ 31:38) is here presiding to be the scholarly face to this utterly heretical mania while claiming that “the Lord is moving me” when he wants to split causing a schism within his movement. Where is this in Scripture:

Even worse, Brown purposefully and completely ignored all the beef. Theodore (as you watch the video he complained about) was speaking on gay rape stories, an epidemic influenced by the LGBT movement in the U.S. military where sodomites are raping male wrestlers and male soldiers.

It is the type of disgust that anyone with a sane mind would comment “I wish I had a rocket launcher,” but then, in America the LGBT won’t just put you on a watch list for saying that sodomites should be executed, but send the heavy weight Evangelical guns and as a result we now get a ton of comments accusing us of being “ISIS”.

Who caused such slander? It is not Muslims, it is the Evangelicals!

In every case Theodore brings up, he speaks harshly of these sodomites. Brown told me by phone that he refuses to call them sodomites and is upset that we fight with his colleagues since it “hurts our witness”.

Never mind the victims. Theodore’s call for death penalty was (and always is) in the context of a news piece he does where sodomites have molested children, raped men or military officers.

But does that mean we go vigilante? Theodore never advocated for unprovoked violence. He does believe in the death penalty for gays depending on each circumstance.

Theodore usually speaks of Russia’s zeal in fighting the sodomites and wishes that American laws at times allow for some of the Russian Orthodox ‘rough methods’ with homosexual predators. He does not support every case since there are victims who are homosexuals who need help, not punishment.

How else can we stop the epidemic if we do not punish the predator and the enabler out of the Temple?

While this is not applicable in the United States, the question is: whose method worked?

After all, Christ said: “you shall know them by their fruit”.

In Poland, the nation of Georgia, Serbia and in Russia the sodomite agenda did not advance as it did in the United States.

This is a fact.

Let me rephrase my question even better: Is Jesus God? Was it Jesus Who visited Abraham prior to announcing and destroying Sodom(5) and was it Jesus Himself who destroyed Sodom?

If Mr. Brown answers “No” that Jesus never destroyed Sodom, he would just have turned into a heretic and a blasphemer. If He would answer “yes”, he would have completely refuted himself when he said that Christ committed not even [righteous] violence.

Brown defends the hysterical Brownsville Revival and Faith Movement, which most of it is cultic to the core and the heresies is not as he once stated “just a minority”.

This is what was sparked in the United States, just an old heresy with people rolling and barking in the spirit and claiming messages from the Almighty. To Brown God told him personally and gave him a private message how to conduct his approaches towards homosexuality.

It is obvious that he heeds to a different spirit.

Christianity is a global faith and not a faith only for the mega American brand of the Evangelical industry. Jesus rode a donkey, cracked a whip and told the disciples to “buy a sword”.  What for? To first, fulfill a prophecy where He is falsely accused “being counted amongst the rebels” (Luke 22:37, Isaiah 53:12) while these two swords of Peter “spiritual” and “temporal” was to carry out justice. To say that we should only and strictly focus on the New Testament is a heresy. Truth is not determined by American democracy or by supporters for homosexuality but by Church authority established from the ancient of times. While the Two Swords of Peter is a Catholic teaching, what amazes me is that being Catholic to many is worse than being a sodomite, where the Catholic is not given any latitude while the sodomite is given everything.

SOURCESb

(1) Peter LaBarbera, an Evangelical who is in the documentary, was confronted by the leftist media on the fact he is in the same documentary with me, the man who believes in God’s law that says that sodomites are to be put to death. Instead of defending the law of the Bible, which he claims to believe, he decided to push for us to recant our statements, and said that if I didn’t that I should be removed from the documentary. Janet called me urging me to make a statement to “clarify” what I really believed, that I really don’t believe in the death penalty for sodomites, but simply in the anti-sodomy laws that were once enacted in Texas. To be honest I was quite hesitant to do this because to do so would mean recanting all of my writings in support for the death penalty. Janet sent me the first draft of the statement to receive my stamp of approval. The draft stated:

“While I have had homosexual activists call for my death and beheading, etc., I have not called for anyone to take the life of those practicing homosexual behavior. I do want the laws of the United States to once again make sodomy illegal as they did prior to the 2003 Lawrence v. Texas ruling because such practice is not only immoral, but physically dangerous, as well.”

But Peter LaBarbera objected to the draft and expressed his dissatisfaction with it, pushing for me to recant my position that an inquisition should be established to uproot homosexuality and other perversities. Peter LaBarbera responded to the draft with this email to Janet:

“Not good enough, if he called for an “Inquisition” against homosexuals. We need to look at the exact comments and craft a statement based on those. I do not have time to do that today or tomorrow as I’m driving to DC. We need transcripts of the exact comments and then he needs to disavow that approach (or clarify what he meant). Otherwise people will keep asking about those specific comments.”

Peter LaBarbera was blocked from entering Canada, and he goes before the media showing how persecuted he is, but yet he wants to block me — a Christian — from being in a documentary for being more politically incorrect than him. And at the same time, he kisses the feet of the sodomite to deny me as Peter denied Christ. A filthy sodomite who calls himself “Joe My God”, began to attack LaBarbera for being in the documentary with me. Peter LaBarbera quickly went on Twitter to appease the sodomite, even going to far as to address him with the blasphemous title of “Joe My God”. Peter LaBarbera wants to do an inquisition saying “We need to look at the exact comments” and “We need transcripts of the exact comments and then he [Theodore Shoebat] needs to disavow that approach”, while at the same time he runs to some sodomite to get his approval. What an absolutely pathetic person. Peter LaBarbera does not want to respect God, but rather “Joe My God”.

(2) The Angelic Doctor, St. Thomas Aquinas, also wrote about the death penalty in his phenomenal Summa Theologica, Part II-II, Q. 64, art. 2. On the question of whether it is lawful to kill a sinner, he responded as follows, first giving three objections to the Catholic view, then giving and explaining the Catholic view, and then refuting the specific objections given at the beginning:

Objection 1. It would seem unlawful to kill men who have sinned. For our Lord in the parable (Mt. 13) forbade the uprooting of the cockle which denotes wicked men according to a gloss. Now whatever is forbidden by God is a sin. Therefore it is a sin to kill a sinner.

Objection 2. Further, human justice is conformed to Divine justice. Now according to Divine justice sinners are kept back for repentance, according to Ezech. 33:11, “I desire not the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way and live.” Therefore it seems altogether unjust to kill sinners.

Objection 3. Further, it is not lawful, for any good end whatever, to do that which is evil in itself, according to Augustine (Contra Mendac. vii) and the Philosopher (Ethic. ii, 6). Now to kill a man is evil in itself, since we are bound to have charity towards all men, and “we wish our friends to live and to exist,” according to Ethic. ix, 4. Therefore it is nowise lawful to kill a man who has sinned.

On the contrary, It is written (Ex. 22:18): “Wizards thou shalt not suffer to live”; and (Ps. 100:8): “In the morning I put to death all the wicked of the land.”

I answer that, As stated above . . ., it is lawful to kill dumb animals, in so far as they are naturally directed to man’s use, as the imperfect is directed to the perfect. Now every part is directed to the whole, as imperfect to perfect, wherefore every part is naturally for the sake of the whole. For this reason we observe that if the health of the whole body demands the excision of a member, through its being decayed or infectious to the other members, it will be both praiseworthy and advantageous to have it cut away. Now every individual person is compared to the whole community, as part to whole. Therefore if a man be dangerous and infectious to the community, on account of some sin, it is praiseworthy and advantageous that he be killed in order to safeguard the common good, since “a little leaven corrupteth the whole lump” (1 Cor. 5:6).

Reply to Objection 1. Our Lord commanded them to forbear from uprooting the cockle in order to spare the wheat, i.e. the good. This occurs when the wicked cannot be slain without the good being killed with them, either because the wicked lie hidden among the good, or because they have many followers, so that they cannot be killed without danger to the good, as Augustine says (Contra Parmen. iii, 2). Wherefore our Lord teaches that we should rather allow the wicked to live, and that vengeance is to be delayed until the last judgment, rather than that the good be put to death together with the wicked. When, however, the good incur no danger, but rather are protected and saved by the slaying of the wicked, then the latter may be lawfully put to death.

Reply to Objection 2. According to the order of His wisdom, God sometimes slays sinners forthwith in order to deliver the good, whereas sometimes He allows them time to repent, according as He knows what is expedient for His elect. This also does human justice imitate according to its powers; for it puts to death those who are dangerous to others, while it allows time for repentance to those who sin without grievously harming others.

Reply to Objection 3. By sinning man departs from the order of reason, and consequently falls away from the dignity of his manhood, in so far as he is naturally free, and exists for himself, and he falls into the slavish state of the beasts, by being disposed of according as he is useful to others. This is expressed in Ps. 48:21: “Man, when he was in honor, did not understand; he hath been compared to senseless beasts, and made like to them,” and Prov. 11:29: “The fool shall serve the wise.” Hence, although it be evil in itself to kill a man so long as he preserve his dignity, yet it may be good to kill a man who has sinned, even as it is to kill a beast. For a bad man is worse than a beast, and is more harmful, as the Philosopher states (Polit. i, 1 and Ethic. vii, 6). (see Catholic Apologetics)

Also see Catechism of the Council of Trent (late 1500’s) “Another kind of lawful slaying belongs to the civil authorities, to whom is entrusted power of life and death, by the legal and judicious exercise of which they punish the guilty and protect the innocent. The just use of this power, far from involving the crime of murder, is an act of paramount obedience to this Commandment which prohibits murder. The end of the Commandment is the preservation and security of human life. Now the punishments inflicted by the civil authority, which is the legitimate avenger of crime, naturally tend to this end, since they give security to life by repressing outrage and violence. Hence these words of David: In the morning I put to death all the wicked of the land, that I might cut off all the workers of iniquity from the city of the Lord.”

Also see The Catechism Explained by Fr. Francis Spirago (1899):

“The officers of justice, in as far as they stand in the place of God, have the right to sentence evil-doers to capital punishment. . . . The authority of the magistrate is God’s authority; when he condemns a criminal, it is not he who condemns him, but God. . . . Yet the judge must not act arbitrarily; he must only sentence the criminal to death when the welfare of society demands it. Human society is a body of which each individual is a member; and as a diseased limb has to be amputated in order to save the body, so criminals must be executed to save society. As a matter of course the culprit’s guilt must be proved; better let the guilty go free than condemn the innocent. It is an error to suppose that the Church advocates capital punishment on the principle of retaliation; an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth. This is a principle of Judaism, not of Christianity. The Church does not like to see blood shed, she desires that every sinner should have time to amend. She permits, but does not approve capital punishment.”
(Francis Spirago, The Catechism Explained, ed. by Richard Clarke [Rockford, IL: TAN Books, 1993], 388-89; italics added for emphasis.)

The Catechism of St. Pius X: “It is lawful to kill when fighting in a just war; when carrying out by order of the Supreme Authority a sentence of death in punishment of a crime; and, finally, in cases of necessary and lawful defense of one’s own life against an unjust aggressor.”

Pope Pius XII (1952): “Even when it is a question of the execution of a man condemned to death, the state does not dispose of the individual’s right to live. Rather, it is reserved to the public authority to deprive the criminal of the benefit of life, when already, by his crime, he has deprived himself of the right to live.” (A.A.S., 1952, pp. 779ff.)” Also see Moral Theology, and the Catholic Encyclopedia (1913).

(3) St. Augustine wrote in the fifth century A.D. in his monumental City of God:

The same divine law which forbids the killing of a human being allows certain exceptions, as when God authorizes killing by a general law or when He gives an explicit commission to an individual for a limited time. Since the agent of authority is but a sword in the hand, and is not responsible for the killing, it is in no way contrary to the commandment, “Thou shalt not kill” to wage war at God’s bidding, or for the representatives of the State’s authority to put criminals to death, according to law or the rule of rational justice. (qtd. in Cardinal Avery Dulles, “Catholicism and Capital Punishment,” First Things, April 2001)

(4) Having been told by someone that we had attacked him (I have that in writing) filling his mind with all sorts of suspicions doubting that we were even Christian. He wrote Theodore “he [your father] decided to come after me last year”. After asking him in writing to show such attacks, he came up empty handed. He then requested to speak by phone (we recorded the whole conversation just in case). He promised to tweet and clarify to the public. Unfortunately he did not include the agreement which included he considers us, being Catholic as Christian and that he wrote the report basing it on hearsay. All what Brown wrote was:

After writing my article re: recent statements by @theodoreshoebat today, I have had some very constructive dialog w. him & @WalidShoebat.

— Dr. Michael L. Brown (@DrMichaelLBrown) February 17, 2016

The ‘constructive dialogue’ included a confession of error by Michael on two counts: 1) doubting our faith 2) admit he wrote the article as a vendetta. It took a while to extract from him “Many Catholics are brothers in the Lord MANY or not.”

Charismatic Christians, alongside gays are prone to using savage slander and the LGBT agenda has the heavyweight seminarians in their pocket who seem to have bonded United Against Theodore by using the typical hook ‘you claim Jesus is love then go after Theodore’.

And I know we spoke last night via phone and he has kindly apologized for having stating that he has no problem with calling us Christians even though we converted to Catholicism. But his article still needs to be rectified in order to do justice.
(5) In Genesis Abraham is visited by three figures, one of whom he refers to as “My Lord” (Genesis 18:3), and who Scripture calls “the LORD” (Genesis 18:17). This person was then God in the flesh, and thus Jesus Christ.