Theological Opinions

[Elvellon]

ginally Posted by inked
Perhaps just perhaps if the Muslims had held their European territory they would now be the laid back "western voice of reason" in the world and the christians would be the foaming at the mouth militant crazies that the muslims often get painted as today. In fact that’s much how it was when the Moors were in power in Spain. They ushered in one of the most amazing eras of architecture and science and education among their citizenry the world has ever known. Meanwhile the Europeans were in a relatively barbaric age with no central power or source of connection.

The greatness of Al-Andalus civilization is much overrated, in my opinion. Actually, politically Al-Andalus was not that a great place to be. Even under the caliphate centralized power could only be maintained by oppression of the natives, like the rebellions during the IX and X century confirm. While scientifically and artistically they were superior to their north Iberian counterparts, they were incapable of creating a stable, ethnically integrated state. Partially it was due to the nature of political power under Muslin rule, it is legitimated by religion, but in a country where the majority wasn’t Muslin no Emir or Caliph could expect to be accepted as the true ruler but by strength of arms.
This frailty becomes even more apparent during the Taifa kings. Distrusting the native population, local lords would use exclusively Berber, Arab and other non-iberic forces. Not even native muslins were accepted in the army. In fact, Islam in Iberia never really became truly native. The aristocracy always acted as a colonial force, exploiting the native population.

Sorry about the rant, but Medieval History is hard to resist.

[Count Comfect]

But compare that with Christian Iberia, which was often just as concerned with strife between Leon/Castile/Aragon/Portugal/etc during this time period, and Al-Andalus (at least when it was still one theoretical state, rather than the Taifa kinglets) doesn't look half so bad.

Basically, Iberia in the 10-12th centuries just shows religion did not work as a unifying factor except in a very broad sense.

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

Originally Posted by Falagar

There weren't just rapings, lots of Vikings settled there, mixed with the original population and started more peaceful lives, if I'm not much mistaken (York is an example of one of their settlements)

indeed, Jorvik viking museum is good to visit, for instance

[Elvellon]

Originally Posted by Count Comfect

But compare that with Christian Iberia, which was often just as concerned with strife between Leon/Castile/Aragon/Portugal/etc during this time period, and Al-Andalus (at least when it was still one theoretical state, rather than the Taifa kinglets) doesn't look half so bad.

Basically, Iberia in the 10-12th centuries just shows religion did not work as a unifying factor except in a very broad sense.[/QUOTE]

Actually the muslins spent a lot of time fighting among themselves; quarrels between Arab factions, quarrels between Arabs and Berbers, quarrels betweens Arabs and Berbers against the native population, not to mention dynastic quarrels and…you get the picture.

However, if the strife between Christian states in the north of Iberia wasn’t that infrequent still they had a far greater cohesion at the social and political level, at least at the internal level of each state, which is one of the reasons why the North won. Just look at the longevity of Christian states, they had a clear identity from early on.

Basically, Iberia in the 10-12th centuries just shows religion did not work as a unifying factor except in a very broad sense.

Indeed. If you are considering the Christian vs. Muslin religions these were rather the flag of the opposing powers. On the other hand, Christianity was a factor of union among the larger part of the native population of both sides of the divide. Interestingly, in the muslin South Islan wasn’t a unifying factor; quarrels motivated by tribal division among the Arabs took precedent, as took divisions between Arabs and Berbers and of these two groups against converted Iberians. Islam wasn’t enough of a force to unify the Muslin south, but Christianity did work to unify recently reconquered territories into the Christian states.

[Spock]

[QUOTE=inked]Attribution to Erik Nelson at midwest conservative journal blog:

"This is one of those areas where the historical illiteracy of most Americans causes severe problems. Few seem to understand that the Crusades were a response to the invasion of Europe. Fewer seem to know that Christians eventually lost the battle with Islam in the Holy Land, even though it did eventually drive out the invasion from a good deal of Europe QUOTE]


Just great; facts have arisen in this thread and not opinion. Thanks Inked!

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Butterbeer

forgive me if i have this wrong but you are a christian, yes? For my part, even though i do not necessarily believe in any organised (by which personally i mean any man-constructed or man-rigid religion ...

Interesting. We do not believe that Christianity is man-constructed, but God-constructed. God came to Earth in the form of a man, and those that believed in him were Christians.

Originally Posted by Butterbeer

i Do support on a personal basis, those that genuinely believe in and uphold the core religious precepts of their religion, my take on that being the common ground of morality which is pretty much the same and pretty good, in it's first inception and at core ... and though it may be, not per-se, what i think, i will always take good honest regard of those that truly do beleive ... religious beleif ... in it's principale form ...

There is a thread on Entmoot called "Religious Knowledge," or something of that sort, where people have taken turns describing their religious beliefs, if they're comfortable with that. I'd be very interesting in hearing there more about what you believe . If you're willing, of course.

Originally Posted by Butterbeer

now seriously, do not get me wrong, i am not doubting you here ...

but i must say from the quote above .. i am concerned that ANY genuine Christian can in any way advocate killing or assassinating any other human ...

First of all, let me express my own personal views. I think that if I retaliate when someone attacks me, often I am doing wrong. I do not believe in retaliation, in most instances. However, if I see someone else abused but do nothing, often I am doing wrong. My general principle in this matter is "defend others first", "defend self last." Sometimes it is best to completely not defend yourself. Other times, like if there is someone dependent on you, it is best to defend yourself.

When the scripture says, "thou shalt not kill," the actual Greek means, "do not murder." Jesus also never said, "all killing is wrong," but he did say murder was, and that anyone who is even angry with his brother is subject to judgment.

In fighting a war, one is defending others, not just oneself. If I assassinate an evil man, often this too is a means of defending others. Of course, if there are other courses of action that can be taken, it is definitely best to carefully examine those first! But assassination can be a means of defending others, and if someone is planning evil against others, it is my responsibility as a person to stop him or her.

Defending the helpless is a critical responsibility of any true human, unless it is completely outside of that person's power to do anything.

Originally Posted by Butterbeer

to me, this goes against the very word and thought and clear instruction of God ... no matter what our everyday personal or Society's world view may be at any given time.

again, i say, please do not take this wrong way ... but i must say i am suprised to hear you, of all people, say that... surely, as i understand it, it cannot squareup in any way with the ...even, basic ten commandments?

Originally Posted by Ecclesiasties 3:1, 3 and 8

There is a time for everything, and a season for every activity under heaven:

. . . a time to kill and a time to heal, a time to tear down and a time to build . . . a time to love and a time to hate, a time for war and a time for peace.

What is the time to hate? The I see someone doing evil. However, I am not to hate the person. I hate the action. I hate the evil that is being done, not the person that is doing the evil. There is a time to tear down. There is a time to destroy. There is a time to kill.

I declare war against all evil. In my life, I hope that I will live out this declaration boldly. When it is absolutely necessary, sometimes even killing is necessary for the defence of others. I am in favor of the death penalty too, so long as we aren't getting many innocent people AT ALL . The death penalty, in my opinion, helps to keep people from killing. Numbers 35:16 says that a murderer should be put to death. In my opinion, such a person forfeits his own right to life in the killing of someone else. It is just that the person be killed.

In my opinion, forgiveness is better for me to show than justice. I hope that if anyone I love is killed, I shall forgive the murderer. Revenge is in no way acceptable as far as the Lord is concerned, according to his words in the New Testament.

[Lief Erikson]

I do not believe in retaliation or revenge. This I want made absolutely clear. Nor am I in favor of killing for greed, envy, and hopefully not anger either. If it is done, it must be done for the defense of others. Court law is defense of others, for if a law exists and is upheld by a society, law-breakers will be much more careful and many times will simply not act as they would if the country was more lenient. In this way, a law with a death penalty does protect others.

Assassination too can protect others. Defensive of preemptive war can also be highly moral, designed to defend others from hostile aggression.

Originally Posted by Butterbeer

I am not in anyway saying you do not truly beleive, i do not know you .. and from what i do know, i'm sure you are true ... but i am most suprised to hear you saying we can go against the word of God and pick and choose on any personal level as individuals, who we, above his authuority and teachings, ... at our own will, can or should decide ... or supporting any such decision on who should live or die, ... as a human being, upsurping and ignoring the clear instruction and beleif in GOD!

I certainly respect your point of view. I do not believe that God wants all humans never to kill, however.

I assume you're against abortion too, by the way. Am I right? If you are, I agree with you on that point. Abortion is unjustifiable killing, and a kind of behavior I definitely hope ends up becoming completely prohibited in the US. One aborts I think entirely for selfish reasons. Desperation and fear to me are selfish reasons. It also is self-defence rather than defence of other people.

Originally Posted by Butterbeer

To me, this does not square up ... thou shall not kill ... at the day of judgment you will be weighed up ... to no other will but our God's shall thy be weighed against, do not make false idols ... nor presume to weigh all things to a nicety in my name ... etc ... you get the point .. even if i winged the exact words, the basic premise is there set in gospel.

so, i am semi-ignorant of many of the exact Christian core belielfs, and do not make any issues out of any of them, for one very clear thing and central belief, it is not my place to do so ... but like i say, i am most suprised to hear you advocating a human being, no matter who, esp on political or propaganda grounds should or could morally be killed ... i fear for all christians if that is the approach...

God says, do not kill, turn the other cheek, i will ultimately judge all...

I tell you Butterbeer, God's judgment will certainly fall upon me if I see evil done and ignore it. That doesn't mean I have to kill anyone who does evil, and it doesn't give justification for me to kill anyone I want to kill. It just means that if, in my moral standpoint, defending others means I need to kill someone, then I am right to do it and in the wrong if I abstain.

Originally Posted by Butterbeer

do you then suppose to put yourself above the word of God

I do not believe that I am putting myself above the word of God, as far as I understand the word.

Originally Posted by Butterbeer

and make a personal unilatteral (as a christian) decision that we can therefore person by person, piecemeal, make a decision who we should KILL, ASSASINATE etc????

I think that each person should do his utmost to do good. Thank the good Lord, Christ is there to help us by enabling us to do good that we could never have done. He transforms people and makes them righteous.

I must behave in the best way I can, according to my moral judgment of what's right and the word of God. Sometimes, the best way to behave is to kill or fight. This is horrible, but I believe it's true.

Originally Posted by Butterbeer

Tome.that seems both wrong in terms of christianity and in,from what i have very loosely learnt about your good self, not to be right.

i look forward to your response ... and again re-iterate this is in no way an attack .. merely just out of total suprise and curiosity HOW a christian can advocate killing someone on human political grounds, yet least in terms of any christian stand-point?

I hope that you note I am arguing not on political grounds, but on Christian and moral grounds. As far as politics go, I believe that politicians also have the right to decide. Hopefully they always will have the best interests of their country and people at heart when they make these awful decisions.

Originally Posted by Butterbeer

As i say i only write this out of suprise and through not understanding how this can square up with the teachings of christ ... not his humanwritten and human led church. Finally, i wish to repeat: i am not having a go, nor wishing to cause any offence whatever, but am genuinely concerned how this could possibly be a christian approach??

My very best to you, though, and looking forward to you sharing your thoughts

BB

Thank-you for talking to me about this. Many others might have remained silent and just privately looked at me in contempt or anger. I'm glad you instead have brought up your difficulty with what I was saying, so that we could talk about it.

Sometimes a police officer finds it necessary to shoot a criminal. I really believe he would be totally in the wrong if he held his fire, and thus put more innocent lives at stake. Assassinating or making war sometimes must be done for moral reasons like this. I hope that what I have said makes sense to you, morally.

I hope to one day roleplay with you on Atharon . After we finish the RPG trilogy my friends and I have been doing on that website, I'll be sure to invite you and others on Entmoot to join us before the next round begins!

~Lief Erikson

[Mercutio]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

I view those Germans that sought to assassinate Adolf Hitler as heroes.

Dietrich Bonhoeffer himself was in on a plot (but it failed--Hitler stood in the wrong part of the room, I believe).

Great Christian theologian and modern martyr (for those of you unfamiliar). He had the option of staying in the U.S. early in the war, but was so devoted to his people that he returned to Germany to continue his secret Christian ministry. He was killed in a concentration camp a few weeks before the end of WWII.

[Lief Erikson]

Good point.

[Butterbeer]

Hi there Lief: thanks for the reply: shorter than i imagined ...

I don't have time just now for a reply: but i will try and put some thoughts down by tuesday or wednesday.


best
BB

[Lief Erikson]

It's my two posts from the 24th you're looking at, not my post from the 26th, correct?

[Butterbeer]

Hi Lief

third time's the charm - have attempted to reply twice and not been happy with it, so logged out...

page 21 post 410, third or 4th bit down i think describes my personal general position...

anyway i checked and i do seem to have banned myself from this thread ... but it would be rude not to reply something.

I guess i really shouldn't, and to be fair don't really wish to pursue this ... but i'll have a bash at a couple of your points since you took such effort in penning them.


firstly, for myself i DO make a distinction between God and the imperfect way he has been represented on earth by imperfect Man... and some of the things done in his name etc... nor do i see that every word written in God's name or relating to god written by man can or even could be truly God's word: some of it is frankly contradictory with other bits...

the scripture says, "thou shalt not kill," the actual Greek means, "do not murder." Jesus also never said, "all killing is wrong," but he did say murder was, and that anyone who is even angry with his brother is subject to judgment.

ok ... firstly this is kinda my point really. But within a tight framework of our discussion ... even by the above definition of murder....assassination would clearly fall into this category in this case thus the direct instruction from God is clear.

also just because jesus never said "all killing is wrong" does not imply that it is:

he just never happened to have said it.

eg: Because jesus did not also say (presumably )

"20th century gas chambers are not on"
does not give any moral legitamacy to the use of gas chambers ... (ignoring the murder bit which does obviously cover this ... but you get the point )

Originally Posted by Ecclesiasties 3:1, 3 and 8
There is a time for everything, and a season for every activity under heaven:

. . . a time to kill and a time to heal, a time to tear down and a time to build . . . a time to love and a time to hate, a time for war and a time for peace.

Again back to my central point ... there are writings saying all manner of things .. to me this is pointless: who wrote that? Why?

is it clear that it is indisputedly word for word direct from god?

I'm sure i could find someone to find an appropriate verse etc that would counter this in some valid way. (in this case probably very many)

That is not a route i think is fruitful to us.

Anyway "a season for every activity under heaven" does rather imply we can do whatever we like, if it is the right (and it's vague enough) season:

heh, it's that kinda season says One: whaddya fancy?

maybe some pillaging or theft, a rape or two? Sodomy or swearing?

Disrepecting our Parents?

Creating false idols whilst coveting an Ox and taking the Lord's name in vain?


Again, you get my point .... this particular line seems really quite extraordinarily NOT what i imagine God's core principles or teachings to be about.

BTW: this is not in any way mocking Christianity, just an example of such man penned words, of which there are thousands and how these could be used and have been by religion (all religions) and Churches to choose to do what they aimed to do etc... or by individual lunatics hell-bent on doing wrong...

In my opinion, forgiveness is better for me to show than justice.

Is not forgiveness the justice we give on a personal and personal moral level? How can we possibly forgive if there is no justice?

To me, the teachings of christ are to forgive: each sinner will be judged ultimately, but not by us here on earth, it is not our place to make such decisions; it is God's.

Revenge is in no way acceptable as far as the Lord is concerned, according to his words in the New Testament.

Excellent. But then how can we justify morally and as a christian - other than in everyday practical societal regards, the death penalty???

Or, if against Abortion, then condone a death penalty?

Sure one can be seen as an innocent and the other not: but did not jesus say " i will judge all" (or my father etc) : i.e. it is not for us to pick and mix which core ,oral techings to adhere to or to disregard ... and the above quote too: "Revenge is in no way acceptable as far as the Lord is concerned" would support this, no?

Of course now i am as guilty of picking verse etc to support my point ... my only defence would be: i quoted you!

Again i suggest we leave that approach because it's a pointless exercise.

Assassination too can protect others. Defensive of preemptive war can also be highly moral, designed to defend others from hostile aggression.

To me this perhaps is the crux of the matter: and my curiosity.

assasination is murder, regardless of our own percieved justification of it morally.
Even by your own quote Jesus clearly tells us this is wrong - AND NOT TO BE DONE.

But going back to the quote: you appear to be saying that in Christian moral belief: Hitler, in this example, would be ok in the eyes of God, or that Chevaz if harbouring exremist Muslims for example is also on good solid firm ground, because if they as equally as you see themselves as defending their faith and their way of life and their family and friends etc: then they too have every moral justification to assasinate, kill, attack etc because in your very words:

Defensive of preemptive war can also be highly moral


Surely Lief: we have a problem here?

What then do we distinguish between terrorists and evil killers and ourselves if we morally justify their behaviour?


Well lief i had a shot at replying.

Hope you find it a worthy response -

for myself i beleive God judges your soul, not written words ... if, in a circumstance you had to kill to defend a close loved one or dependant and you in your heart felt it was right, and forgave both yourself and the attacker for putting you in that position, i believe God will view your soul and it will be bright and whole.

But i cannot see how a soul could be seen as joyus to the Lord that took issue with his word and instruction and actively sought to make it's own moral decisions on life and death and in this example advocated assasination or state sponsored death penalities, making it's own moral codes to replace God's.



These are of course my theoretical or theological thoughts rather than being in any way what i might do in any given situation or relating to world views or my own viewpoints.

I feel i should make this clear: for example when i thought the police officer in london had every reason to believe the innocent Brazilian to be a bomber: i did not hesitate to back him in making the call to save lives and do his job. Of course this also proves the worry about killing: he was innocent.

But i am not a christian in any organized way: I beleive in God and the basic commandments: the rest i view as a historical swamp or vortex of words. (no offence)

besides, neither am i a policeman, nor wish to be put into that situation - for many of the thoughts expressed above.


Well, all the best anyway - i'm sure that ends it, eh lief? ... Nothing more to be said really

Hope nothing caused any offence.

BB

[Butterbeer]

EDIT: duplicate. One was enough i think!

[Lief Erikson]

I am fully capable of responding, my friend. I take note of these two statements of yours, however:

Originally Posted by Butterbeer

i do seem to have banned myself from this thread ...

Originally Posted by Butterbeer

I guess i really shouldn't, and to be fair don't really wish to pursue this

It'll be a few days before I get a good chance to sit down and respond properly to your post (college life=very busy). I can do so though, if you are interested in continuing the conversation. I probably will have a three to four day weekend because of Labor Day, and I love discussions of the sort we're right now having, so I will have time soon to respond.

I have some very interesting discussions rather like this going on in college right now; I'm LOVING them. Entmoot has been my first experience of real debate, and I'm benefitting from it in-class.

So what do you want? Shall we continue?

[Butterbeer]

Hi Lief.

well, if you want to.
Guess we should try and keep it friendly though.

For my part i am merely curious how these things square up with modern day life and christian beliefs.

can't be easy?

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Butterbeer

For my part i am merely curious how these things square up with modern day life and christian beliefs.

I think you're making a mistake about the content of Christian beliefs. There is nothing in the Bible that makes a broad statement "thou shalt not kill." In fact, the death penalty was certainly advocated in the Old Testament, if someone accused of certain crimes was found guilty.

Ecclesiasties was written by Solomon, but it too is considered to be "the Word of God".

As regards how this squares up with modern day life, I need you to explain something to me. Explain to me the view that "how can we arbitrarily decide when someone should die?" Why is it that you think no reason is good enough?

You think, I assume, that for certain offenses we have the right to take away aspects of people's quality of life (by putting them in prison). Isn't this to a lesser degree taking away someone's life? It's an arbitrary decision too, based upon the needs of society and based upon our belief in the importance of justice.

Originally Posted by Butterbeer

Guess we should try and keep it friendly though.

Definitely .

[Butterbeer]

hi lief, this then will be a friendly cut and thrust of debate ... since you enjoy it ... rather than any means to any end ... a game of chess with rapier like words... or not as the case may well be sometimes!

I think you're making a mistake about the content of Christian beliefs. There is nothing in the Bible that makes a broad statement "thou shalt not kill."

are you suggesting the premise of christianity has absolutely nothing to do with the commandments?

Ecclesiasties was written by Solomon, but it too is considered to be "the Word of God".

considered by whom? By all christians universally?

Explain to me the view that "how can we arbitrarily decide when someone should die?"

Forgive me but i was rather hoping you would answer that one yourself, since i asked it first... and it was pretty central to this whole friendly exploration of morality and ideas in a centralised religion, in a global and complex world.

Why is it that you think no reason is good enough?

I think we should be wary of assigning ideas, thoughts or percieved beleifs or attitudes to each other,Lief, without any clear evidence or justification ...

.... please let's be very clear: everything i have talked about is not about me, or my viewpoints, nor do i wish it to be, it has always been my curiosity about how Christians deal with these moral dilemmas ... i was exploring the commandments and was asking the question since God will judge all, is it not ultimately HIS decision not ours?

remember this began out of my curiosity how a christian could (morally) advocate assaniation?


Well, Lief, look forward to you answering my questions with questions and me doing the same back! hopefully some others will join in with some attempts at answers

best BB

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Butterbeer

are you suggesting the premise of christianity has absolutely nothing to do with the commandments?

I am suggesting that "Thou shalt not kill" is not one of the commandments. "Thou shalt not murder" is, and murder has a far more limited definition than "kill". One can fight a war without committing murder, and sometimes an assassination too can be an act of war.

Originally Posted by Butterbeer

considered by whom? By all christians universally?

With few exceptions. It's considered the Word of God by many Jews as well.

I'll be back later . . . supper now . . .

[Butterbeer]

how was your supper? Boy, i am hungry ... not really been eating well for the last few days with one thing and another and my hectic work life just recently.

Will go and have a real BIG Sunday lunch in a while ...


Forgive me Lief: but i have always been told "thou shall't not kill" was a commandment. Of course this is my problem with organised religion in that we then get into semantics and historical interpretation etc: language is a living thing and in part reflects and is shaped by societies and places and people .... and the exact use or interpretation of language is absolutely KEY to it's meaning. And of course it's the very meaning here we are looking at....

but even if we view it as murder ... assaination would count, don't you agree?

One can fight a war without committing murder

OOH, ( i literally went "oooh Lief!" when i read that )

that's highly debatable ... maybe as a solitary individual soldier .. if you are lucky .. i.e. maybe not intentional murder, but innocents being killed anyway in cross-fire etc ... or following nasty orders to burn places down even though you know there are people in there .. maybe of all types, ages and genders ...

How many inncoents have the US or Britain, or the Germans, or the french or Japanese, or the Russians or the iraqi's or the Vietnamese etc etc killed in war: quite often more than actual combatants.

Hiroshima?

The brit and US firestorm blanket bombings of Dresden?

Inncoent children killed and burnt hideously?

This then is morally o.k. but abortion is not?


BTW: i am in no way a pacifist ... but this is not about me: (nor you ) i just do not understand how how the teachings of Christ can square up with many things done in his name? I.e. not hiroshima etc, but various passages written over the years by the hand of man apparently giving us justification for just about every situation morally .. yet often at odds with other words written elswhere...

hey Lief ... you wanted a debate, right?

To me it's all these man penned words .... claiming to come from god but to me it seems appearing to contradict Jesus's KEY moral commands ... odd isn't it?


Anyway, hope you enjoyed your supper. I'll say a prayer at lunch for those without any food, or water or shleter this day. (can't do any harm can it?)

Best BB

P.S.

Heh Lief! Valandil and Earniel have just joined a new rpg here ... of nazgul and kings .... it'd be great if you could join ... even just as an occasional poster .. i'm sure they like me would be very pleased to have someone of your RPG reputation part of it!

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Butterbeer

Forgive me Lief: but i have always been told "thou shall't not kill" was a commandment.

That was how it used to be translated. Not anymore. You'll find scholars in full agreement on this point. The new Bible translation, NIV, has written in it, "thou shalt not murder."

Also there are other places in the Bible where killing is accepted in certain situations. It is in Ecclesiasties, "there is a time to kill . . . a time for war . . . a time to tear down." It is in the Law of Moses, where the court system was set up. Death penalty was definitely very much a part of the law. That shows that our God, Yahweh, is not opposed to people coming to their own conclusions about whether or not to kill someone. He of course is strongly against the innocent being convicted and destroyed, but never promises "you don't need to have courts or trials- I with my perfect knowledge will judge you all."

Originally Posted by Butterbeer

but even if we view it as murder ... assaination would count, don't you agree?

No, I don't. I think assassination can be, quite simply, an act of war. It is striking someone who is seeking your destruction.

Originally Posted by Butterbeer

OOH, ( i literally went "oooh Lief!" when i read that )

that's highly debatable ... maybe as a solitary individual soldier .. if you are lucky .. i.e. maybe not intentional murder, but innocents being killed anyway in cross-fire etc ...

If I accidentally bump into my mother and she falls down the stairs and dies, am I a murderer? I don't think so. It was an accident. I consider innocents killed in the cross-fire to be accidental killings.

Originally Posted by Butterbeer

or following nasty orders to burn places down even though you know there are people in there .. maybe of all types, ages and genders ...

How many inncoents have the US or Britain, or the Germans, or the french or Japanese, or the Russians or the iraqi's or the Vietnamese etc etc killed in war: quite often more than actual combatants.

Hiroshima?

The brit and US firestorm blanket bombings of Dresden?

Inncoent children killed and burnt hideously?

This is a tough issue. Sometimes the order is to kill people known to be non-combatants. I think perhaps this too can be sometimes morally justifiable. The people you are fighting often are aiding their war cause, even if they are non-combatants. Perhaps they are providing food. They give food, which enables a soldier to eat, which enables him to have energy to kill you. Destroying the civilian can at times be a matter of self-defense too, even if indirect.

Another tough issue is policy decisions. When war commanders decide to engage, they know that innocents will be killed. They may try to minimize those casualties as much as they possibly can, but they must acknowledge that innocents too will die. Therefore when they choose to destroy an enemy, they are knowingly deciding that X number of civilians too are going to die.

My answer to that is that sometimes we have no choice. Which is a worse evil? To refuse to attack as long as it's possible civilians will die (which will be almost all the time), and thus cause many, many more of your own people to die, or to destroy innocent lives along with your enemies? If you're unwilling to allow the possibility of your destroying any civilians, you're unwilling to allow the possibility that your cause will win the war. It's certain that with your lofty principles you will lose the war. So sometimes, I would say, the destruction of civilians is a necessary evil in our imperfect world. It is something that unfortunately we cannot change.

Originally Posted by Butterbeer

This then is morally o.k. but abortion is not?

Abortion is completely different. It is not about self-defense or justice, as war and assassination often are. It is about self. The mother kills the child in order to benefit her own life. Often she escapes a miserable situation by doing so. Working and trying to support a family without another adult to help, having some social stigma for her behavior, usually having had to drop out of school, knowing that your child is going to grow up poor and with increased chances of being a criminal . . . most of these reasons too are selfish. They relate to the woman's own condition. "I don't want my quality of life reduced, therefore I will kill." That is selfishness and ugly weakness, in my opinion. To be willing to kill just in order to live more comfortably. It's gross, and very different from war, where the situation is "kill or be killed."

Originally Posted by Butterbeer

BTW: i am in no way a pacifist ... but this is not about me: (nor you ) i just do not understand how how the teachings of Christ can square up with many things done in his name? I.e. not hiroshima etc, but various passages written over the years by the hand of man apparently giving us justification for just about every situation morally .. yet often at odds with other words written elswhere...

hey Lief ... you wanted a debate, right?

To me it's all these man penned words .... claiming to come from god but to me it seems appearing to contradict Jesus's KEY moral commands ... odd isn't it?

I don't think that anywhere in the Bible is the message that, "you shall never kill." In fact, the Biblical message is against it. God placed through Moses law systems among the people Israel that included the death penalty. This same God spoke through Solomon, who recognized there is a time to kill.

Really though, I would turn the question around some toward you. If you believe killing is never justifiable, how is prison justifiable? God is going to judge the person later on, after all. I know you aren't interested in answering that, but I consider that slightly cheap .

Originally Posted by Butterbeer

Heh Lief! Valandil and Earniel have just joined a new rpg here ... of nazgul and kings .... it'd be great if you could join ... even just as an occasional poster .. i'm sure they like me would be very pleased to have someone of your RPG reputation part of it!

I really don't think I have time for it, as my college schedule is so tight. I'm taking eighteen units of course work, and the maximum students are allowed to take is nineteen. I'm skimming the edge, but thanks for the invitation . It's certainly appreciated.