RE: christian terrorism? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message

Sanity -> RE: christian terrorism? (6/1/2009 11:05:07 AM)


Try to be reasonable. I never intended the simple analogy to cover every possible situation to ever confront mankind...


quote:

ORIGINAL: philosophy
...as is non-lethal force. You've apparently working on the assumption that there are only two choices; do nothing or use lethal force.



Musicmystery -> RE: christian terrorism? (6/1/2009 11:05:37 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity

Again, law wasn't at issue. Hypocrisy was.


OK. Then this is pretty simple. Killing to prevent killing because killing is wrong is logically problematic, whatever the societal or religious context, and is hypocritical by simple definition. Similarly, committing a criminal act in the name of righteousness is both illogical and hypocritical.

It's also why law-abiding Christians distance themselves from such thoughts and actions.





kdsub -> RE: christian terrorism? (6/1/2009 11:10:41 AM)

To me there is little difference between phil's subject line and the ramblings of Rush Limbaugh...I hope the irony is apparent.

Butch



Sanity -> RE: christian terrorism? (6/1/2009 11:11:03 AM)


Then why do we have police. Why do we arm our police...


quote:


OK. Then this is pretty simple. Killing to prevent killing because killing is wrong is logically problematic,



Musicmystery -> RE: christian terrorism? (6/1/2009 11:17:07 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity

Then why do we have police. Why do we arm our police...

quote:


OK. Then this is pretty simple. Killing to prevent killing because killing is wrong is logically problematic,


Perhaps you're unaware they try to avoid killing people.

And now, we're back to the law.

This circle is tiresome. Whatever you post next, just go back and read previous replies as new responses. Thanks.




RCdc -> RE: christian terrorism? (6/1/2009 11:22:05 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

Terrorism is a concerted…systematic use of terror to coerce one group into following an agenda.

This was no such thing…even close… it was plain and simple murder… There is no concerted effort…if there was show me… there no systematic acts of terror…if there were show me… this is murder or a single terrorist act but not terrorism by Christians in any form.

Words do mean something and you can’t just change them to fit a view..

Butch



Sheesh, Butch, I was agreeing with you to an extent.  I'm not arguing about whether it was terrorism or not.  There isn't enough info to go on right now EITHER way.
The reader and the writer have a responsibility.  And that's it.
 
the.dark.



philosophy -> RE: christian terrorism? (6/1/2009 11:22:44 AM)

"In November 2004, a United Nations Security Council report described terrorism as any act "intended to cause death or serious bodily harm to civilians or non-combatants with the purpose of intimidating a population or compelling a government or an international organization to do or abstain from doing any act". "

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism

...do feel free to back up your definition of terrorism with anything you can find.



philosophy -> RE: christian terrorism? (6/1/2009 11:23:59 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

To me there is little difference between phil's subject line and the ramblings of Rush Limbaugh...I hope the irony is apparent.

Butch


...really? Good grief.



kdsub -> RE: christian terrorism? (6/1/2009 11:25:52 AM)

[:D]... Once I get on my high horse it takes a few posts to get off...ignore the post following.

Butch



philosophy -> RE: christian terrorism? (6/1/2009 11:26:53 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity


Try to be reasonable. I never intended the simple analogy to cover every possible situation to ever confront mankind...


quote:

ORIGINAL: philosophy
...as is non-lethal force. You've apparently working on the assumption that there are only two choices; do nothing or use lethal force.



....well, your analogy is too simplistic then. We're talking about a situation where lethal force was used apparently before any consideration of non-lethal force. To have any relevance to this discussion there has to be at least three options; do nothing, lethal force, non-lethal force.



kdsub -> RE: christian terrorism? (6/1/2009 11:32:44 AM)

So phil... you think the actions of this man meet the description you have just given?...He was trying to intimidate a whole population and compelling a government?

Don’t forget you also used Christian so does the Christian Church meet your description above? To call it a chance…with a… ?… There must be in your mind a chance that the Christian Church is practicing terrorism.

And just take the time to look in a good English dictionary as to the meaning of terrorism...I already did… did you?

Yes… good grief



DomKen -> RE: christian terrorism? (6/1/2009 11:41:51 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

So phil... you think the actions of this man meet the description you have just given?...He was trying to intimidate a whole population and compelling a government?

Don’t forget you also used Christian so does the Christian Church meet your description above? To call it a chance…with a… ?… There must be in your mind a chance that the Christian Church is practicing terrorism.

And just take the time to look in a good English dictionary as to the meaning of terrorism...I already did… did you?

Yes… good grief


Based on his background and previous activities I'm quite confident that his action was intended to intimidate a whole population. I'm also quite comfortable saying that he is a christian terrorist as he was associated with christian groups who advocate and support just such actions.



Arpig -> RE: christian terrorism? (6/1/2009 11:42:25 AM)

quote:

the Christian Church

There is no such thing. Christianity is by far the most subdivided religion. There are literally hundreds, if not thousands, of christian sects/cults, each espousing its own version of the "Way". To speak of "the Christian Church" is to show an alarming lack of understanding, or perhaps simply an overwhelming level of ignorance regarding the facts.



philosophy -> RE: christian terrorism? (6/1/2009 11:45:30 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

So phil... you think the actions of this man meet the description you have just given?...He was trying to intimidate a whole population and compelling a government?


....yup.....

quote:

Don’t forget you also used Christian so does the Christian Church meet your description above?


...which one?......

quote:

 To call it a chance…with a… ?… There must be in your mind a chance that the Christian Church is practicing terrorism.


...no it doesn't. It means in my mind there's a chance that a Christian is practising terrorism. Do try to keep up.

quote:

And just take the time to look in a good English dictionary as to the meaning of terrorism...I already did… did you?


...and where's your quote with accompanying link?



Musicmystery -> RE: christian terrorism? (6/1/2009 11:48:30 AM)

~FR~

We do have a man choosing to kill in a church in a clearly premeditated murder. Certainly that was chosen for its dramatic impact.





Sanity -> RE: christian terrorism? (6/1/2009 2:56:29 PM)


They don't try to avoid killing people when killing people is necessary to prevent killing. Killing people is their goal in such a situation.

And no, we're not back to the law, the law was never being discussed in this context. And believe me, I'm sure it is getting tiresome for you to try to defend something so indefensible as your laughable assertion that force is never required to stop violence...

I will agree with you that this argument is circular, but it is you who needs to go back and read what was written before. All that I have asserted here is that sometimes violence is justified in order to stop violence.

Its really as simple as that.


quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity

Then why do we have police. Why do we arm our police...

quote:


OK. Then this is pretty simple. Killing to prevent killing because killing is wrong is logically problematic,


Perhaps you're unaware they try to avoid killing people.

And now, we're back to the law.

This circle is tiresome. Whatever you post next, just go back and read previous replies as new responses. Thanks.





Musicmystery -> RE: christian terrorism? (6/1/2009 3:08:31 PM)

quote:

Killing people is their goal in such a situation.

No. It's protecting citizenry.
quote:

And no, we're not back to the law

Police are law-enforcement officials. It's their raisin d'etre.
quote:

your laughable assertion that force is never required to stop violence

I have never claimed that, neither here nor elsewhere.
quote:

All that I have asserted here is that sometimes violence is justified in order to stop violence.

Then you should have simply said so. I doubt anyone is going to contest that.

But in the context of the OP, such a statement would certain seem to imply a defense of the shooter, and therein lies the debatable material. The shooter had other options, and the shooter committed a clear crime.

That's very different from "sometimes violence is necessary to stop violence."




Sanity -> RE: christian terrorism? (6/1/2009 3:29:16 PM)


Oh - you're upset because you've added meaning to my posts which wasn't there.

Thanks for clearing that up.



Musicmystery -> RE: christian terrorism? (6/1/2009 3:38:26 PM)

Actually, I'm not upset at all. Why would I be?

I'm simply pointing out that your claims are inaccurate and that your arguments keep shifting.

And that it's a pattern that appears to be neverending.

Now the story appears to be that you're claiming an obvious point that doesn't address the thread's topic. Interesting tactic.

But yes, pointless in terms of meaningful discussion.



Sanity -> RE: christian terrorism? (6/1/2009 4:25:12 PM)


No, I have been very consistent, my point was simple and concise - sometimes force is required to end violence, even if one does not believe in violence.

And no, it wasn't an endorsement of the killing which is the object of discussion, just a statement of fact.

I am sorry that you so completely misunderstand, but again - I have been quite clear.



Page: <<   < prev  4 5 [6] 7 8   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875