muslims PART 2

[rohirrim TR]

Wow the catholics are still bitter about Luther and his 95 thesi, thats remarkable. It reminds of how this british guy was bitter about thanksgiving, going on about those "pilgrim traitors".

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

First of all, your personal ability to deplore anti-semitism is completely unrelated to your church membership. That was absurd, and even I can't tell, rereading myself, what original idea emerged as that. I apologise.

Second, my use of the word "heresy" was sloppy and misleading. People would only be subject to trial as heretics if they'd been baptised, even forcibly. So, to get my number I was including other activities that wouldn't be related to "heretics", but only to "infidels", such as the Crusades. Again, I was wrong to use that word.

Ah, well, if you include infidels, that makes your number more plausible.

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

I meant the Reformation to which

Yes, I am aware of that. Martin Luther did not promote freedom of any speech but his own in the Reformation.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Butterbeer

I rather believe i clarified i was referring rather to this statement:

Now- apply that very quote to your own reply, and analyse it - (forgetting the grammar, naturally)

..............

dear me, what do they teach these days? ... don't they teach Logical thought processes anymore???

Sisterandcousinandaunt said that millions had been murdered. Most of those he puts in this number were killed in war, though. If my country is at war with another country and I kill one of their soldiers in battle, that's not murder, yet those deaths are a large chunk of sisterandcousinandaunt's number. Hence it is loaded language.

[Butterbeer]

and the issue of censor?

That, what may be deemed, 'loaded language' by one ought to be referencable by what scale of accuracy? ... and the issue of enforcing change to the written word?

does this not equate to an attack on the freedom of language, and indeed free thought?

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

that you are never in a position to kill anyone.

I further hope, that, should you be compelled to kill someone, your trust in this definition of murder protects your conscience from regret.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Sisterandcousinandaunt said that millions had been murdered. Most of those he puts in this number were killed in war, though. If my country is at war with another country and I kill one of their soldiers in battle, that's not murder, yet those deaths are a large chunk of sisterandcousinandaunt's number. Hence it is loaded language.

But I don't necessarily believe it would. Causing a death is, and should be, momentus. Walking into Jerusalem and putting all to the sword (leaving aside, for the moment, why all those Europeans traveled so far for the opportunity to do so) has to be considered murder, even in the context of "war." The stain was on their souls.

[Butterbeer]

are you a he or she btw?

[The Gaffer]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

Yes, I am aware of that. Martin Luther did not promote freedom of any speech but his own in the Reformation.

No, but the result of the Reformation was....a whole bunch of stuff including demands for more freedom of worship, less hierarchical control of "truth", significantly greater emphasis on an individual's personal relation with God and the Truth rather than one mediated by some cleric ... contributing significantly to the development of freedom of speech.

Can I take it we agree that:

it is a vast oversimplification to ascribe [those aspects of Western society abhorred by Muslim extremists] purely to secularism

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Butterbeer

and the issue of censor?

That, what may be deemed, 'loaded language' by one ought to be referencable by what scale of accuracy? ... and the issue of enforcing change to the written word?

does this not equate to an attack on the freedom of language, and indeed free thought?

It's an attack on fallacies . I'm not saying there should be a law that prevents him from posting fallacies, but by the same token, neither should there be a law that prevents my pointing them out! That's all I'm doing.

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

But I don't necessarily believe it would. Causing a death is, and should be, momentus. Walking into Jerusalem and putting all to the sword (leaving aside, for the moment, why all those Europeans traveled so far for the opportunity to do so) has to be considered murder, even in the context of "war." The stain was on their souls.

I agree with you that ethically, this was no different from murder, even if technically the term doesn't fit. I don't know that "millions" were killed in such atrocities, though. I think "millions" were definitely slain if you include soldiers killed in combat, especially if you look at multiple religious wars rather than just a single war, and you could say well over a hundred million if you include disease, though I think including disease would be unfair. I just don't know that you can say millions were murdered, though, in terms of civilians being killed in atrocities such as you mention.

It's also really tough because sometimes, especially in wars with lower technology levels, hitting the civilian population was necessary to end the war more quickly and so save more lives in the long run. The Sherman March is a good example of this, and the bombing of industries in civilian areas of Germany and Japan, and the nuclear bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Civilians play a very important role in a war effort. They don't fight the war themselves, but they give food to those who do, clothing, and monetary support to the troops, and support those who send the troops out and recruit them. So they are involved in the war effort, often, and isn't the one who sends someone else onto the field as guilty of what takes place as the one on the field? It can be tough to draw the line between "civilian" and "soldier". Especially back when technology was lower and we couldn't make precision attacks like we often can nowadays. So sometimes the destruction of civilians like this is not necessarily a war crime.

Refusing to hit any civilians or civilian areas, especially in past wars, will prolong the time that their side can produce more soldiers and equipment, and so can make the casualties on both your side and their side worse in the long run. So that's a tough ethical issue, and if killing civilians in war is sometimes justified, as I think it can be, this too would disqualify some of those killings as "murder." Rather, those killings might be the most ethical thing to do, to preserve life on both your side and that of your opponent.

I'm not saying that any or all civilian casualties in war are justified. I don't even think that killing the enemy troops in battle is always justified- it varies depending on what troops we're talking about, among other circumstances. I'm just saying that civilian deaths are sometimes justified, and the ethics involved in war can be very complex, without any simple black and white cover-all-bases view being appropriate.

But even if we discounted this and agreed, for the sake of argument, that all purposefully committed attacks on civilians in war are murders, I don't know that this number would reach the millions number you suggested.

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

it's right out of the Al-Queda training manual, isn't it.

[Lief Erikson]

As I think about this more, sisterandcousinandaunt, and more carefully, I actually suspect that you are correct. If we include all the Christian religious wars in history, I bet you're probably right that millions have been murdered in the name of Christ. So I'm withdrawing my complaint about your choice of language on that point.

[Butterbeer]

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

it's right out of the Al-Queda training manual, isn't it.

Lief's compassionate christianity?

Looks that way.

[Butterbeer]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

As I think about this more, sisterandcousinandaunt, and more carefully, I actually suspect that you are correct. If we include all the Christian religious wars in history, I bet you're probably right that millions have been murdered in the name of Christ. So I'm withdrawing my complaint about your choice of language on that point.

2 minutes?

well, good.

One needn't, Lief, surrender either a position, nor, more importantly one's core beliefs because the world will not, nor ever did, fit into rosy tinted perspective...

But one should not therefore taint the very tenets of one's belief to attempt to encompass the very real and pointed imperfections of the potential truth contained in any rose-tinted fragrant avenue -

Life, let alone gardening is rarely like that -


be true to what you think and/or believe, but do not be blindly drawn down blind side-streets filled with filth or traps or needless bigotry

Accept the impure with the pure in this world, as jesus accepted- the better to judge between the two-

do NOT be suckered into blind socio/political dogma.

Think for yourself - whatever your'e final outcome.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

Gee, it's right out of the Al-Queda training manual, isn't it.

And out of the manual of the Allies who repelled Nazism in World War 2.

Based on your reasoning, which seems to be that anything the bad guys do shouldn't be done by the good guys, I might argue, "The Nazis used guns, so our policemen shouldn't have guns."

In fact, I might just as well say, "the Nazis wore clothes to protect themselves from the cold in winter. So we should never wear clothes." Or, "Al'Qaeda personel use cell-phones, so we shouldn't use cell-phones." Heck, the Al'Qaeda personel eat food, so we had better not eat food either!

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Butterbeer

2 minutes?

well, good.

One needn't, Lief, surrender either a position, nor, more importantly one's core beliefs because the world will not, nor ever did, fit into rosy tinted perspective...

Agreed.

Originally Posted by Butterbeer

But one should not therefore taint the very tenets of one's belief to attempt to encompass the very real and pointed imperfections of the potential truth contained in any rose-tinted fragrant avenue -

Life, let alone gardening is rarely like that -

Not that you have to clarify it if you don't want to, but I'm afraid I don't understand the analogy you're making or what you're saying here.

Originally Posted by Butterbeer

be true to what you think and/or believe, but do not be blindly drawn down blind side-streets filled with filth or traps or needless bigotry

Thanks for the tip. I'll try to avoid this.

Originally Posted by Butterbeer

Accept the impure with the pure in this world, as jesus accepted- the better to judge between the two-

I don't understand what you're saying when you say, "accept the impure." That's something I can't do, and believe it is very, very wrong to do. I'll fight impurity where I find it. Do you think we should have accepted Hitler's impure ways and just let him walk all over us?

Originally Posted by Butterbeer

do NOT be suckered into blind socio/political dogma.

Again, thank you and I'll try to avoid that.

Originally Posted by Butterbeer

Think for yourself - whatever your'e final outcome.

I assure you, I think of myself all the time.

Sorry, I couldn't resist saying that!

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

that there is a difference between things that are right and things that are wrong. And the good guys shouldn't do things that are wrong.

You see, we aren't that far apart, on some things.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

that there is a difference between things that are right and things that are wrong. And the good guys shouldn't do things that are wrong.

I suspected that that was what you meant, but it wasn't your argument. But it sounds impressive, doesn't it, to compare my words to those of Al'Qaeda? And I know that's why you did that instead of comparing my words to those of the Allies in WW2. Stop playing with fallacies!

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

You see, we aren't that far apart, on some things.

I guess . . .

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

I think all the justification you were spinning, about necessary casualties in war, is exactly what makes it possible for people to sign up as suicide bombers.

OR to go to Iraq and shoot strangers.

I think that in order to do that, people need to distance themselves from the real import of their actions. AND I think that Jesus would disapprove. I think that Matthew 26.52 speaks to that directly.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

I think all the justification you were spinning, about necessary casualties in war, is exactly what makes it possible for people to sign up as suicide bombers.

OR to go to Iraq and shoot strangers.

The fact that Al'Qaeda uses this reasoning for their ends doesn't make the reasoning wrong, any more than the fact that the Nazis used guns makes it wrong for us to use them. The fact that someone bad uses a certain technique doesn't make it wrong. You're assuming that the action is wrong in your words just by saying, "bad guys use it," but without providing any evidence or reasoning other than that to support your claim.

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

I think that in order to do that, people need to distance themselves from the real import of their actions.

Huh? Why?

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

AND I think that Jesus would disapprove. I think that Matthew 26.52 speaks to that directly.

This scripture must also be read in the context of the rest of the Bible, for that's where it is. Many scriptures can be taken out of context and then interpreted in wild ways. But there are many scriptures that show God approving and even ordering his followers killing people. So it's not that all killing is wrong, according to the Gospel of Matthew.

Remember also that Jesus specifically said that the Law was not obsolete or discarded, but rather was fulfilled in him. In fact, he said that not the smallest stroke of the pen that was written in the Law would be lost. Ecclesiasties comes right out and says, "there is a time to kill." The statement that, "all who draw the sword will die by the sword," is a general truth. People who pursue violent lives very often end violently. Sometimes they get away with it and sometimes good people die violently. But it generally happens that the violent die violently, because their lifestyles lead them into dangerous places and make them enemies.

Jesus wanted his disciples not to get into this violent lifestyle, but rather to have mercy and turn the other cheek. As Ecclesiasties says, "there is a time and place for everything under the sun"- though I think that other scriptures make it clear that this too is a general truth referring to most actions, but not something that is referring to inherently sinful actions.

Ecclesiasties says, "there is a time to kill and a time to heal," and I believe that. And I also believe what Jesus said, which was that people who live in violent lifestyles often end violently. I think it's clear from scripture that there is "a time for everything under the sun," and that includes a time to defend oneself and a time to not defend oneself.

In verse 54, Matthew 26 makes clear that the reason this was not a time to defend oneself was that otherwise the scriptures would not be fulfilled.

[Lief Erikson]

Forget the tiny, irrelevant post right here.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

I think all the justification you were spinning, about necessary casualties in war, is exactly what makes it possible for people to sign up as suicide bombers.

OR to go to Iraq and shoot strangers.

Oh, crikey!
Did you read the entire post before you made that comment? He sums it up like this:

Originally Posted by Lief

I'm not saying that any or all civilian casualties in war are justified. I don't even think that killing the enemy troops in battle is always justified- it varies depending on what troops we're talking about, among other circumstances. I'm just saying that civilian deaths are sometimes justified, and the ethics involved in war can be very complex, without any simple black and white cover-all-bases view being appropriate.

It seems to me that he was discussing the sometimes fuzzy line between combatant and civilian.

I think that in order to do that, people need to distance themselves from the real import of their actions. AND I think that Jesus would disapprove. I think that Matthew 26.52 speaks to that directly.

How about Matthew 5:34 : "Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword."

and Luke 22:26: "He said to them, 'But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one.' "

context, context, CONTEXT!!

So do you think people should NEVER stand up and fight for something they believe in? I think that attitude is an attitude that would make suicide bombers flourish, if you want to go with those types of comments.

Originally Posted by sis

Causing a death is, and should be, momentus.

I have no doubt that it would be so to Lief.

Originally Posted by sis

I further hope, that, should you be compelled to kill someone, your trust in this definition of murder protects your conscience from regret.

Kill someone under what circumstances? If a person is raping his sister and has a knife to her throat and in trying to stop him, he kills him? Walking up to a stranger on his college campus and shooting him at random? And if you think he's wrong, why wouldn't you want him to regret his action?