RELIGIOUS Debate on Terroristm-who, why, etc.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

However, I cannot possibly ignore the fact that he conquered Arabia by force of arms

He only took to arms because the Meccans were pursuing him. They wanted him dead. He managed to pull out a victory in a series of battles against all odds and survived. I wouldn’t call that exactly meaningless violence simply for the sake of killing. Nor would I call it anything at all equivalent to what the suicide bombers are doing today. They attacked head on. Not covertly attacking random innocents.

Furthermore, you will need to remember (Mr. Context… ) that at this time violent military struggle was the standard way of solving issues. So its not as if Muhammad defending himself against the Meccans and then uniting the rest of Arabia was some radical shift from the way the world worked then. Its only been done like this since time immemorial. The Jews certainly had a similar history as youll recall from your old testament. Does that make anything that evolved from their religious doctrine inherently violent? Pre-Islamic Arabia was caught up in a vicious cycle of warfare in which tribe fought tribe back and forth and back and forth. After the Meccan battles Muhammad focused on building a PEACEFUL coalition of tribes and achieved victory by an ingenious campaign of NON-violence. When he died in 632, he had almost single handedly brought peace to war torn Arabia. This was a unique event you see… This was Arthurian in nature… Largely unprecedented.

And perhaps you have forgotten that the great Byzantine empire was at the very same time that Muhammad was fighting the Meccans pushing its way through Mesopotamia, destroying everything as they went. And this is a CHRISTIAN empire Lief… Gosh what does that tell us about Christianity… The answer is of course… nothing.

Here, I'd appreciate some context.

some context? Im not sure what more you need. It was on his program and he was calling for the expulsion of all foreign university students and racial profiling of arabs (by their dress I can only assume from his diatribe…). Its pretty straight forward:

In a November 10 broadcast, televangelist Jimmy Swaggart referred to the Prophet Muhammad as a "sex deviant" and "pervert." He also called for the expulsion of all foreign Muslim university students in the United States and for profiling of airline passengers "with a diaper on their head and a fan-belt around their waist." Of American Muslims, Swaggart said: "We ought to tell every other Moslem (sic) living in this nation that if you say one word, you're gone." Moreover, he even seemed to suggest violence against Muslims when he stated that others need to "clean their nose with their teeth," an apparent reference to a punch in the nose.

It sounds to me as though Swaggart was saying we should get rid of Muslims that support terror through preaching.

not unless every muslim student in the country is preaching terror…

I have not read the Koran. I have read a significant part of a book written by Muslims and called "An Introduction to Islam". I was given a history assignment for highschool of writing a fairly lengthy report about the rise of Islam.

Well Im sure you did some great research for your high school paper Lief… but lets look at what Religious Scholars say about Islam. Not historians.

Originally Posted by Karen Armstrong, well known Religious Scholar and Author of a number of books on Islam

The very word Islam, which means "surrender," is related to the Arabic salam, or peace.

hm… ok well that’s interesting and all. but we need more then that im sure youll agree.

Because the Koran was revealed in the context of an all-out war, several passages deal with the conduct of armed struggle. Warfare was a desperate business on the Arabian Peninsula. A chieftain was not expected to spare survivors after a battle, and some of the Koranic injunctions seem to share this spirit. Muslims are ordered by God to "slay [enemies] wherever you find them!" (4: 89). Extremists such as Osama bin Laden like to quote such verses but do so selectively. They do not include the exhortations to peace, which in almost every case follow these more ferocious passages: "Thus, if they let you be, and do not make war on you, and offer you peace, God does not allow you to harm them" (4: 90).

so a clear example of showing only one side of the situation. Funny, people do that with the bible all the time too don’t they…

In the Koran, therefore, the only permissible war is one of self-defense. Muslims may not begin hostilities (2: 190). Warfare is always evil, but sometimes you have to fight in order to avoid the kind of persecution that Mecca inflicted on the Muslims (2: 191; 2: 217) or to preserve decent values (4: 75; 22: 40). The Koran quotes the Torah, the Jewish scriptures, which permits people to retaliate eye for eye, tooth for tooth, but like the Gospels, the Koran suggests that it is meritorious to forgo revenge in a spirit of charity (5: 45). Hostilities must be brought to an end as quickly as possible and must cease the minute the enemy sues for peace (2: 192-3).

Ah so very Christian eh?

Islam did not impose itself by the sword. In a statement in which the Arabic is extremely emphatic, the Koran insists, "There must be no coercion in matters of faith!" (2: 256). Constantly Muslims are enjoined to respect Jews and Christians, the "People of the Book," who worship the same God (29: 46). In words quoted by Muhammad in one of his last public sermons, God tells all human beings, "O people! We have formed you into nations and tribes so that you may know one another" (49: 13)--not to conquer, convert, subjugate, revile or slaughter but to reach out toward others with intelligence and understanding.

So why the suicide bombing, the hijacking and the massacre of innocent civilians? Far from being endorsed by the Koran, this killing violates some of its most sacred precepts. But during the 20th century, the militant form of piety often known as fundamentalism erupted in every major religion as a rebellion against modernity. Every fundamentalist movement I have studied in Judaism, Christianity and Islam is convinced that liberal, secular society is determined to wipe out religion. Fighting, as they imagine, a battle for survival, fundamentalists often feel justified in ignoring the more compassionate principles of their faith. But in amplifying the more aggressive passages that exist in all our scriptures, they distort the tradition.

Fantastic words that should really make you think quite frankly. Don’t misinterpret fundamentalism with a religion created in a time of war. That would be perhaps understandable but a grave mistake because that’s what the terrorists do…

Here's what Muslims say about Jihad:

and here is what the Koran says:

Islam is not addicted to war, and jihad is not one of its "pillars," or essential practices. The primary meaning of the word jihad is not "holy war" but "struggle." It refers to the difficult effort that is needed to put God's will into practice at every level--personal and social as well as political. A very important and much quoted tradition has Muhammad telling his companions as they go home after a battle, "We are returning from the lesser jihad [the battle] to the greater jihad," the far more urgent and momentous task of extirpating wrongdoing from one's own society and one's own heart.

I would really like to agree with George Bush that these bombers are simply "murderers hijacking a religion." I think, however, based upon history and the Koran, that these bombers are interpreting the Koran correctly and liberal Muslims are not.

apparently you are interpreting the Koran quite selectively as we see above…

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

A difficulty lies in the fact that a major part of Muslim doctrine is the infallibility of scripture, I believe. They're like Christians, in that way.

true, but there are millions of christians who do not believe in this, yet still practice the other parts of the faith (probably more don't believe the infallibility part than do)

my guess is many muslims in the modern world fall into the same boat

and even if they do... interpretation is up to the individual in the end

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

true, but there are millions of christians who do not believe in this, yet still practice the other parts of the faith (probably more don't believe the infallibility part than do)

my guess is many muslims in the modern world fall into the same boat

and even if they do... interpretation is up to the individual in the end

(Yawns, having just woken from a long nap )

I don't believe that there are millions of Christians who believe the Bible is not infallible. I believe there is a definite minority that think that. I think the same as regards the Muslims, simply because I don't think that their religion would be nearly as attractive if it didn't tell you what's what, and Islam does appear to be steadily growing.

I'd like to see some statistics .

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

(Yawns, having just woken from a long nap )

I don't believe that there are millions of Christians who believe the Bible is not infallible. I believe there is a definite minority that think that. I think the same as regards the Muslims, simply because I don't think that their religion would be nearly as attractive if it didn't tell you what's what, and Islam does appear to be steadily growing.

I'd like to see some statistics .

i'll have to look, but that's a tough survey to take... but i know from my life experience that while probably 80%+ of the people i've known are some kind of christian, i've only come across a handful that think the bible must be interpreted by the letter... and many even take contrary stances on everything from abortion to female clergy to marriage, etc... you've read the posts here for a few years... christians fall all over the map in opinion... sometimes claiming misinterpretation, sometimes just plain disagreement with a given biblical stance

many people pick and choose their religious beliefs, and it's the good points that defines their faith, as opposed to "it has to be 100% right or it is 100% wrong"

i don't know anywhere near as many muslims, and the ones i do are not radical in any way... but people are people, and i'd venture a guess that they are pretty similar

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

He only took to arms because the Meccans were pursuing him. They wanted him dead. He managed to pull out a victory in a series of battles against all odds and survived. I wouldn’t call that exactly meaningless violence simply for the sake of killing. Nor would I call it anything at all equivalent to what the suicide bombers are doing today. They attacked head on. Not covertly attacking random innocents.

I don't believe that suicide bombers are attacking "simply for the sake of killing." I don't believe that at all. It is hardly meaningless violence either. It is very purposeful violence.


The Arabian tribesmen of the time of Muhammad very strongly believed in ancestor veneration and worship. Muhammad preached that all of these ancestors were in hell, because they had not followed the one God, but had followed many gods. He taught that if people didn't follow Allah, they would be brutally tortured in the afterlife, and he went on to describe those tortures in detail. Now I'm not railing against Muhammad's beliefs. Indeed, it shows a great deal of boldness to me that he'd be willing to preach such things in such a hostile environment as he was in.

After this, Muhammad's home tribe, the Quraysh, persecuted him and his followers. They fled and came to Yathrib, in order to mediate a dispute for some Arabian tribesmen. Yathrib was renamed Medina, "The City of the Prophet". In Medina, Muhammad executed many that opposed him, and exiled or enslaved others.

Those Jews Muhammad exiled became supporters of the Quraysh, and went to live in an oasis called Kaybar. Their support for the Quraysh was a thorn in Muhammad's side.

Medina and Mecca entered into competition then, attempting to get control of the alliances of as many of the surrounding tribes as they could. The Quraysh in Mecca at first had the advantage in this, because of superior trade links. Muhammad ended that by vigorously attacking the Quraysh's and their supporters' caravans, taking many hostage and much plunder. For four years, the Quraysh and the Muslims fought a bloody war over this. According to the Cambridge History of the Islamic World, Muhammad began the war, because the Meccans were pagans.

In 628 AD, the two sides formed a truce. Muhammad used the truce to his own advantage, attacking and conquering the Jews of Kaybar, the Quraysh's allies. In 630 BC, he conquered Mecca without bloodshed. At the same time, Muhammad had engaged in many other campaigns and expeditions to conquer and unify other Arabian tribes.

Following Muhammad's death, a vast number of the tribes sought to break up. This showed the temporary and violent manner in which he'd patched them together. After Muhammad was dead, they were eager to get away. Abu Bakr, Muhammad's successor, launched another series of military campaigns to get them all under control again. After he succeeded in doing this, he launched raids on the Byzantine and Sassanid Empires.

Look, can you not see a history of aggression? It went on after this, it definitely went on. After the Muslims had forged a great empire, they fought two bloody civil wars. According to historians, they almost conquered the world. Was this all defensive? Was Jihad peaceful soul-searching alone? How can you really believe that?

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Furthermore, you will need to remember (Mr. Context… ) that at this time violent military struggle was the standard way of solving issues. So its not as if Muhammad defending himself against the Meccans and then uniting the rest of Arabia was some radical shift from the way the world worked then. Its only been done like this since time immemorial.

That doesn't make it right. It is true that violent and hideous acts have taken place in the world before, but that doesn't justify the part Muhammad played in them.

Originally Posted by Sura 5:032-5:034

For that cause We decreed for the Children of Israel that whosoever killeth a human being for other than manslaughter or corruption in the earth, it shall be as if he had killed all mankind, and whoso saveth the life of one, it shall be as if he had saved the life of all mankind. Our messengers came unto them of old with clear proofs (of Allah's Sovereignty), but afterwards lo! many of them became prodigals in the earth.

The only reward of those who make war upon Allah and His messenger and strive after corruption in the land will be that they will be killed or crucified, or have their hands and feet on alternate sides cut off, or will be expelled out of the land. Such will be their degradation in the world, and in the Hereafter theirs will be an awful doom;

Save those who repent before ye overpower them. For know that Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

The Jews certainly had a similar history as youll recall from your old testament. Does that make anything that evolved from their religious doctrine inherently violent?

It would take a bit of work for me to set up an effective explanation here. It'd take time and change the nature of the discussion. However, one thing I will point out immediately. The passages in the Koran relating to violence are more open-ended. They are general directives that can be applied to any time period after them. The charges in the Old Testament were not statements of how people afterward should behave, but statements of how those specific people should behave. Muhammad was explaining in the Koran how people should live. The Old Testament describes how people were ordered to live at that time. There is a difference. The Old Testament makes no violence-demanding statements that we can apply to ourselves now, while the Koran does.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Pre-Islamic Arabia was caught up in a vicious cycle of warfare in which tribe fought tribe back and forth and back and forth. After the Meccan battles Muhammad focused on building a PEACEFUL coalition of tribes and achieved victory by an ingenious campaign of NON-violence. When he died in 632, he had almost single handedly brought peace to war torn Arabia. This was a unique event you see… This was Arthurian in nature… Largely unprecedented.

I agree that the achievement was impressive. He and his immediate followers did amazing things. However, this was not a campaign of non-violence. Nothing like. Muhammad preached to people and threatened them, declaring that they must convert or die. This fact is chronicled in various places in the Koran, and is made all the more plain by the fact that so many of them broke away from the Muslim cause as soon as Muhammad was dead.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

And perhaps you have forgotten that the great Byzantine empire was at the very same time that Muhammad was fighting the Meccans pushing its way through Mesopotamia, destroying everything as they went. And this is a CHRISTIAN empire Lief… Gosh what does that tell us about Christianity… The answer is of course… nothing.

I have already responded about the Christian kingdoms and empires in my earlier posts.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

some context? Im not sure what more you need. It was on his program and he was calling for the expulsion of all foreign university students and racial profiling of arabs (by their dress I can only assume from his diatribe…). Its pretty straight forward:

I was interested in seeing what he said immediately before and after these remarks, to see how they fitted in with the rest of what he was saying. Oh well . . .

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

not unless every muslim student in the country is preaching terror…

I didn't hear an accusation that all Muslims are responsible for this. To me it sounded more like a broadcasted warning to all of Muslim students, because some of them might be involved in this.

However, if Swaggart does think that all Muslim foreign students should be expelled, maybe you're right. I don't know; that's why I wanted to see the context for those other remarks.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Quote:
Originally Posted by Karen Armstrong, well known Religious Scholar and Author of a number of books on Islam
The very word Islam, which means "surrender," is related to the Arabic salam, or peace.


hm… ok well that’s interesting and all. but we need more then that im sure youll agree.

The word Islam is Arabic for "submission" --The World Book

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Quote:
Because the Koran was revealed in the context of an all-out war, several passages deal with the conduct of armed struggle. Warfare was a desperate business on the Arabian Peninsula. A chieftain was not expected to spare survivors after a battle, and some of the Koranic injunctions seem to share this spirit. Muslims are ordered by God to "slay [enemies] wherever you find them!" (4: 89). Extremists such as Osama bin Laden like to quote such verses but do so selectively. They do not include the exhortations to peace, which in almost every case follow these more ferocious passages: "Thus, if they let you be, and do not make war on you, and offer you peace, God does not allow you to harm them" (4: 90).


so a clear example of showing only one side of the situation. Funny, people do that with the bible all the time too don’t they…

Also Muhammad frequently in the Koran says, "if they worship the true God, do not harm them." Essentially saying, if they convert and serve me, spare them." That this also was the more common message is indicated again by the fact that so many tribes broke away from the Muslim cause upon Muhammad's death, and had to be forcibly brought back into line by his successor.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Quote:
In the Koran, therefore, the only permissible war is one of self-defense.

Don't believe it. It's not historical, and it's not what Muhammad or his followers practiced.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Muslims may not begin hostilities (2: 190). Warfare is always evil, but sometimes you have to fight in order to avoid the kind of persecution that Mecca inflicted on the Muslims (2: 191; 2: 217) or to preserve decent values (4: 75; 22: 40). The Koran quotes the Torah, the Jewish scriptures, which permits people to retaliate eye for eye, tooth for tooth, but like the Gospels, the Koran suggests that it is meritorious to forgo revenge in a spirit of charity (5: 45). Hostilities must be brought to an end as quickly as possible and must cease the minute the enemy sues for peace (2: 192-3).


Ah so very Christian eh?

In Christianity, revenge and retaliation are definitely forbidden, and are not in Islam. However, the moral improvements Muhammad preached there were improvements over what was commonly accepted at that time, in Arabia.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Quote:
Islam did not impose itself by the sword. In a statement in which the Arabic is extremely emphatic, the Koran insists, "There must be no coercion in matters of faith!" (2: 256). Constantly Muslims are enjoined to respect Jews and Christians, the "People of the Book," who worship the same God (29: 46). In words quoted by Muhammad in one of his last public sermons, God tells all human beings, "O people! We have formed you into nations and tribes so that you may know one another" (49: 13)--not to conquer, convert, subjugate, revile or slaughter but to reach out toward others with intelligence and understanding.

I already brought up a scripture from the Koran which offers a rather different perspective on the attitude of Muhammad toward Christians and Jews. Remember also that he attacked the Jews of Kayba without being attacked first and crushed them. His followers attacked and conquered the Christians of the Byzantine Empire.

However, I know that Christians and Jews weren't always treated absolutely horribly in places where the Muslims ruled. Many times they were "simply" treated as second-class citizens, subject to higher taxes, to economic pressure, but not to physical violence.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

So why the suicide bombing, the hijacking and the massacre of innocent civilians?

Muhammad too took hostages, when raiding the Meccan trade caravans. "Innocent" also is a point of view. The Koran does have passages where it condemns the killing of innocents, but it also says that killing those that are "corrupt or guilty of manslaughter" is permissible. How are people to interpret that? Well, I think we are already seeing.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

during the 20th century, the militant form of piety often known as fundamentalism erupted in every major religion as a rebellion against modernity. Every fundamentalist movement I have studied in Judaism, Christianity and Islam is convinced that liberal, secular society is determined to wipe out religion. Fighting, as they imagine, a battle for survival, fundamentalists often feel justified in ignoring the more compassionate principles of their faith. But in amplifying the more aggressive passages that exist in all our scriptures, they distort the tradition.

Like I said, I think the true interpretation of Islam can be found by looking at the actions of Muhammad and his immediate followers. The true interpretation of Christianity can be found the same way.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Fantastic words that should really make you think quite frankly. Don’t misinterpret fundamentalism with a religion created in a time of war. That would be perhaps understandable but a grave mistake because that’s what the terrorists do…

Again, history shows what Muhammad and his followers believed, and how they acted upon their faith. It certainly had many benefits morally for many people, hence its attractiveness. However, it also has a very violent edge to it, one that has been heeded throughout almost every century of Islam's existence, and is now raising its head again.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Islam is not addicted to war, and jihad is not one of its "pillars," or essential practices. The primary meaning of the word jihad is not "holy war" but "struggle."

That's a modern liberal point of view, but that is not how Muhammad interpreted it.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

It refers to the difficult effort that is needed to put God's will into practice at every level--personal and social as well as political. A very important and much quoted tradition has Muhammad telling his companions as they go home after a battle, "We are returning from the lesser jihad [the battle] to the greater jihad," the far more urgent and momentous task of extirpating wrongdoing from one's own society and one's own heart.

I acknowledge that transforming the soul and "struggling" against sin may indeed be part of the meaning of jihad. It also has its physical, warlike aspect, however.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Quote:
I would really like to agree with George Bush that these bombers are simply "murderers hijacking a religion." I think, however, based upon history and the Koran, that these bombers are interpreting the Koran correctly and liberal Muslims are not.


apparently you are interpreting the Koran quite selectively as we see above…

I am interpreting the Koran the way Muslims interpreted it until the fall of the Ottoman Empire . . . almost the religion's entire time of existing . . . I'm getting tired of reiterating this point. From the birth of Islam, it was warlike, and it has continued warlike. It is in the Koran's passages. It was common in those times, as you have pointed out, but that does not change what it was. Anyway. I'm tired.

I see the suicide bombings actually as paralleling historical Muslim attacks. The war against Mecca began with raids on its trade caravans. The attacks on the Sassanid and Byzantine Empires likewise began with Muslim raids on those empires' territory. This current war we are fighting, with its occasional terrorist bombings, in my opinion is following the same pattern.

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

i'll have to look, but that's a tough survey to take... but i know from my life experience that while probably 80%+ of the people i've known are some kind of christian, i've only come across a handful that think the bible must be interpreted by the letter... and many even take contrary stances on everything from abortion to female clergy to marriage, etc... you've read the posts here for a few years... christians fall all over the map in opinion... sometimes claiming misinterpretation, sometimes just plain disagreement with a given biblical stance

You don't have to take the survey. What Christians you encounter largely depends where you live and where you go. :/ I live in a conservative circle. When I went to the Episcopal Church I am now attending, I found myself in an almost completely liberal group. When I go to a different nearby Anglican Church, I find myself in an almost completely conservative circle. Also what state you live in, or what country, has a major impact upon what kind of Christian you'll encounter. You may be right about the number of liberals there are too . . . I don't know. I hate to believe what you suggest (being conservative myself), but perhaps it's true.

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

many people pick and choose their religious beliefs, and it's the good points that defines their faith, as opposed to "it has to be 100% right or it is 100% wrong"

I have a less happy picture of liberalism. To me, it treats with indifference things that are sacred and fills itself with lies and deception . There's my bleak outlook.

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

i don't know anywhere near as many muslims, and the ones i do are not radical in any way... but people are people, and i'd venture a guess that they are pretty similar

Again, I think it's largely a matter of where you live.

[Lief Erikson]

I'm filling up this thread with debate, and having devoted this entire day to it, am getting very worn out. Thank-you everyone, though, for making this an interesting and enlightening experience . I appreciate it.

[Insidious Rex]

Oh Rian…

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

his opinions - but is he calling for hate and murder

Robertson Calls for Chavez Assassination

By SUE LINDSEY, Associated Press Writer Tue Aug 23,12:21 PM ET

Religious broadcaster Pat Robertson has suggested that American agents assassinate Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez to stop his country from becoming "a launching pad for communist infiltration and Muslim extremism."

"We have the ability to take him out, and I think the time has come that we exercise that ability," Robertson said Monday on the Christian Broadcast Network's "The 700 Club."

"We don't need another $200 billion war to get rid of one, you know, strong-arm dictator," he continued. "It's a whole lot easier to have some of the covert operatives do the job and then get it over with."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050823/..._assassination

Well if that isn’t “inciting the populace to hate and anger� I don’t know what is.

[Lief Erikson]

Two points I'd like to make on this. I've been keeping up on the issue, also, you understand.

1# I don't see there as anything really wrong about assassinating a country's leader, if that leader is evil or doing evil. For example, our big bombing attempt on Saddam Hussein occurred without an official declaration of war. I just am not sure that it's absolutely morally wrong in all situations.

2# Pat Robertson has since spoken publicly about his comments regarding Venezuela. He says that he is being misunderstood, and that "taking him out" can be done in many ways, including kidnap. He said that he never said, "assassination."



Now there are reasons for what Mr. Robertson said concerning Venezuela. I would be interested to hear him give a full explanation of what his views concerning Venezuela are, and how he supports them. The Bush Administration has been quite critical of Venezuela recently, because it has been interfering with the internal affairs of other countries in the region and our Secretary of State has called it "a negative influence."

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

1# I don't see there as anything really wrong about assassinating a country's leader, if that leader is evil or doing evil. For example, our big bombing attempt on Saddam Hussein occurred without an official declaration of war. I just am not sure that it's absolutely morally wrong in all situations.

i agree with this in certain situations... in fact, in iraq such an attempt, coupled with support of the opposition that existed at the time in iraq, may have been a much better course to have continued with, as opposed to the full-scale invasion we did

[Spock]

Indeed but then we couldn't even get to Fidel and he's only 90 miles away.

[Lief Erikson]

A very sad and embarressing bit of bungling that was.

[Lief Erikson]

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

[Insidious Rex]

So you are saying Hugo Chavez is the equivilent of Hitler?

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

1# I don't see there as anything really wrong about assassinating a country's leader, if that leader is evil or doing evil.

So then when the mullas call for death to americans because they believe we are evil and doing evil its justified?

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Spock

Indeed but then we couldn't even get to Fidel and he's only 90 miles away.

true, but the problem could have been the very fact that even at that place and time it was seen as immoral (not to mention illegal) by the US government... things may have been different if it wasn't

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

So you are saying Hugo Chavez is the equivilent of Hitler?

No. I was simply pointing out that the act of assassination is not itself necessarily evil.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

So then when the mullas call for death to americans because they believe we are evil and doing evil its justified?

It's definitely understandable. I believe that the Muslim who would shoot me because he thinks I'm Satan is incorrect that I'm Satan. If I were Satan though, he would be right. Therefore his action is very understandable to me, and his devotion (willing to die for the cause) laudable. If only he knew he were incorrect .

[Butterbeer]

[QUOTE=Lief Erikson]
1#

I don't see there as anything really wrong about assassinating a country's leader, if that leader is evil or doing evil. For example, our big bombing attempt on Saddam Hussein occurred without an official declaration of war. I just am not sure that it's absolutely morally wrong in all situations.

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

well Lief, ... hello by the way, i'm not sure we have directly posted together before, so hello! ... also Earniel says you are a great - or were? - a great RPG player ... )

...well, Lief,

I don't see there as anything really wrong about assassinating a country's leader

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 ... 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 ...

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 ...


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?

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!

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

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?

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

[Lief Erikson]

Hello, Butterbeer . It's a great pleasure to meet you, and I assure you that in no way at all do I consider your post an attack. I find your surprise and opinion quite understandable too. I will certainly explain myself.

Originally Posted by Butterbeer

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

well Lief, ... hello by the way, i'm not sure we have directly posted together before, so hello! ... also Earniel says you are a great - or were? - a great RPG player ... )

I very much enjoyed roleplaying with Eärniel, and hope to do so again . I moved my roleplaying from Entmoot to a new website called Atharon, in order to have increased freedom our RPGs. Tolkien's world can get a bit limiting, if you want to be true to it.

I'll respond to your post very soon. I have to go for a little trip first, to help my mother unload some boxes and stuff at a nearby place . . . will be back soon .

[Lief Erikson]

I'm working on my response to your post now. However, I'm going to make my response in the "Theology" thread. The discussion seems to fit in more there than here.