BS: Qu: Regarding Religion

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: Greg F.
Date: 09 Mar 16 - 05:05 PM

their position on pacifism a minority one.

However that may be, minority or otherwise, Professor, it proves your prior statement to be the usual arrant bullshit.

What a surprise.

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 09 Mar 16 - 05:03 PM

No Michael, they are there because people need them, that does not mean that they believe the killing is justified. Anyway we don't have executions any more.

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 09 Mar 16 - 05:00 PM

Military padres? Prison chaplains at executions?

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 09 Mar 16 - 03:07 PM

"No. The churches and Christians have always been clear that taking a life, although evil, may be justified"

Nonsense Keith.

You, I and everyone else who has contributed were brought, up with a commandment that stipulated "Thou Shalt not kill".

No if's no maybe's.

It is the thing we were all taught from being small children.

The church(s), no one else, have altered that in very recent years to read thou shalt not murder.

I, and I suspect many others, prefer the original.

Sadly others, like yourself, seek to justify killing.

It is really that simple.

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 09 Mar 16 - 02:50 PM

Oh aye.. "Main church"

A few hundred thousand people out of almost seventy million attend CofE Sunday services. How main is that? Far more people go to car boot sales....

Large church... Eeh, you give me a smile, I'll give you that one. The churches may be large but the pews aren't looking as polished by arses these days...

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 09 Mar 16 - 02:47 PM

I'll tell you what Christians say Keith, shall I?

They say Thou Shalt Not Kill.

It isn't an issue when they kill in his name or the name of personal gain or sheer wickedness, because as you demonstrate, Christianity as a concept cannot be a moral code because you make it up as you go along, as an example, the stupid suggestion that all christians think the bible got such a key bit wrong.

They call them commandments, you know.. Any idea how much "interpretation" that word allows for?

Fool.

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 09 Mar 16 - 01:01 PM

" British policy on arms sales is highly restrictive. See what Amnesty says."
Don't give a toss Keith - are you denying they sell arms to human rights abusers and despots?
If so why not just say it's wrong and Unchristian to do so?
If you don't you stand as a hypocrite
G'arn give it a try and see if you are struck down by a thunderbolt from Westminster
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Mar 16 - 12:30 PM

How are Quakers not a "main church"?

They are a small church in comparison to Anglicans, Catholics, Methodists, Presbyterians and other large churches.

Call them a small, main church if you will, and their position on pacifism a minority one.

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 09 Mar 16 - 12:25 PM

'The main churches do not and never held that it is always wrong to take life in any circumstances'.
.,,.,.
They have, indeed, frequently held thruout history that it is right to do so -- Crusades, Holy Office + other Inquisitions...

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 09 Mar 16 - 12:21 PM

How are Quakers not a "main church"?

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Mar 16 - 12:15 PM

Musket,
the first thing they would realise is that it is not unequivocal.

Yes it is.
Look up what the real scholars say about it, and then tell us why we should ignore the experts and listen to you.

Jim, British policy on arms sales is highly restrictive. See what Amnesty says.
British policy on arms sales has nothing to do with faith, church or commandment. It is purely political and rational, which is how you atheists want government policy to be.
This discussion is about religion.

Dave and Greg, I acknowledged early on that some Christians, including Quakers, are pacifists. We have discussed conscientious objectors years ago.

They are a tiny minority. The main churches do not and never held that it is always wrong to take life in any circumstances.
Christians go out lethally armed as police or military and always have, knowing they are breaking no commandment unless they murder.

Christians have to consider such things, and they do.

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 09 Mar 16 - 12:03 PM

All Christians agree...

Little Sir Echo, how do you do?
Hello! Hello! Hello!

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 09 Mar 16 - 11:32 AM

"Wrong again, Professor - guess you've never heard of the Society of Friends, as example of many."

He must have!

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 09 Mar 16 - 11:22 AM

I daresay that God thanks Himself that you are not, for that matter, Jim...

≈·☺·M·☺·≈

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 09 Mar 16 - 10:58 AM

"I have a deep loathing for the Saudi regime,"
That is not a condemnation of the policy of selling arms - it is a selective get out - how about the Yemen, or Bahrain or Syria or Syria or all the squalidly murderous dictatorships Britain sells to and is still touting trade from?
British policy flies in the face of Christian principles, whatever way you interpret 'Thou Shalt Not Kill" in selling arms, in supporting the wealthiest in our society, in promoting greed and acquisition.... and your support of all of these makes you the "Christian" you are - a great example for your Church!!
Thank god I'm not a believer!!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 09 Mar 16 - 09:59 AM

Why are US police officers of interest? Shh.. Keep it to yourself but we call ours armed response units.

"All there for everyone to see in the original Hebrew. ..unequivocal"

Two things there.. If we assume everybody can read original Hebrew and everybody had read it, the first thing they would realise is that it is not unequivocal. For starters, you assume words have direct translations when in fact they don't, never have done and never can. (What's the ancient Hebrew word for Internet?). Murder is a word derived from penal codes set up in isolation from different cultures too, prat.

But because nobody other than a few scholars can read ancient Hebrew, we'll leave it to them eh? Oh.. Mostly theologians and they speak of interpretations (plural..) not translations.

Any other hobbies Keith? Perhaps ones you have a better grasp of?

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: Greg F.
Date: 09 Mar 16 - 09:51 AM

The churches and Christians have always been clear that taking a life, although evil, may be justified.

Wrong again, Professor - guess you've never heard of the Society of Friends, as example of many.

Back to your trusted old "All Historians" gambit, I see.

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Mar 16 - 09:44 AM

Where have oyu specifically condemned the British Government

"I have a deep loathing for the Saudi regime, and do not approve of arming them." Keith A of Hertford - PM
Date: 09 Mar 16 - 02:14 AM

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Mar 16 - 09:41 AM

Jim,
you have shown yourself to be more interested in defending the non-Christian (by your own admission) sale of arms to despots

I have not done that.
Again you sink to personal abuse instead of issues.

"Examples" I asked for examples of
"The British Government sells arms to States which use them to commit war crimes and to suppress their people "

What war crimes?

If you do find an example, the government does not ask churches who they should sell arms to.
Those decisions are purely political and rational, as you atheists insist government decisions should be.
Nothing to do with religion, faith or the commandments.
Stick to the subject.

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Mar 16 - 09:34 AM

Rag,
It is the churches position that has changed.

No. The churches and Christians have always been clear that taking a life, although evil, may be justified.
Otherwise American Christians could never become police officers.
They do, in huge numbers.
Likewise serving in the armed forces.
Christians have had to think about such things.
Atheists do not.

It is well understood that it is murder that is always wrong.
It is no sin to use lethal force if needed to protect the innocent, and never has been.

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 09 Mar 16 - 08:13 AM

"Why not just discuss the issues."
The issue is religion - you have decided to take part in this and you have shown yourself to be more interested in defending the non-Christian (by your own admission) sale of arms to despots than you have honestly defending why you believe it is a correct thing to do as a Christian nation.
"Examples please"
You've been given them over and over again - the sale of weapons to despotic regimes such as Saudi Arabia an Bahrain at the time when the Arab people were seeking to free themselves of those despots.
The sale of arms to both sides of the conflict in Libya.
The sale of ammunition, riot control equipment and other military goods at the time Assad was shooting down thousands of civilians on the streets of Homs - also the sale of chemicals capable of being used in the manufacture of chemical weapons.
You defend this openly and have done for as long as it has been an issue.
"But I do condemn it, as I keep saying!!"
Where have oyu specifically condemned the British Government - nowhere - on the contrary, you have made excuses as to why they are maybe not as bad as others.
It doesn't matter a tuppeny damn who else sells them - the British Government represents
"Amnesty disagrees"
UTTER NONSENSE
Other opinions
ARMS SALES TO DESPOTS
Now lets have your list of those who say Britain isn't selling arms to killers !!!
Christian my arseum
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 09 Mar 16 - 07:53 AM

"The original Hebrew is there for all to see and quite unequivocal.
You atheists have just misunderstood, as ever"

Those atheists were probably all brought up as Christians. They are only quoting the commandment they were taught.

It is the churches position that has changed.

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Mar 16 - 07:43 AM

Jim,
Your 'Christianity' ignores some of the most profound and important teachings of the Christian doctrine

No it does not.
Why do you always get so personal and emotional. Why not just discuss the issues.

The British Government sells arms to States which use them to commit war crimes and to suppress their people
Amnesty disagrees. Examples please.

Musket.
Nice to see Keith admit he learned "thou shalt not kill" after all.

Nothing so simplistic.
Christians know what is meant, or none could serve in the forces or as US police officers.
We know that the commandment does not rule out ever taking a life whatever the circumstances. Just murder.
You atheists have just got it all wrong as ever.

Hence Keith's insistence on "mistake in KFV" rather than differing interpretations.

The original Hebrew is there for all to see and quite unequivocal.
You atheists have just misunderstood, as ever.

Jim again,
Your refusal as a Christian to condemn the sale of arms to despots by your Government has every bearing on you as a claimed Christian.

But I do condemn it, as I keep saying!!

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: GUEST
Date: 09 Mar 16 - 05:11 AM

And I might add, totally uncool

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 09 Mar 16 - 04:52 AM

"The decision to sell to them is again political and no faith, church or commandment had any bearing on it."
Your refusal as a Christian to condemn the sale of arms to despots by your Government has every bearing on you as a claimed Christian. equivalent to the biblical 'Passing by on the other side' or 'washing of hands'.
What your elected Government does is done in your mane and supposedly in your interest - you have the duty, if not as a Christian, or as a human being, at leaset as a voter, to speak out about the support of despotic governments.
In refusing to do so, you have allowed our politicians to put blood on your hands.
Apart from all this, Britain is recognised as a Christian Country, even to the extent of giving clergymen a voice in the running of the state via The House of Lords - you cannot separate political decisions from s
spiritul ones in those circumstances.
I've never had any great problems with other people's beliefs and superstitions - my problem has always been with the Church.
I've always looked on Christianity as a fairly passive, largely harmless mob who at least pay lip service to brotherly love, peace and compassion.
It's always struck be that if Christians lived up to their suppoesed belifs the word would be a much netter place
If your brand of warlike and predatory Christianity is anything to go by - did I get that one wrong!!

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: GUEST
Date: 09 Mar 16 - 04:21 AM

Joe Offer, preemptive war, as in, Carthago delenda est!

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 09 Mar 16 - 03:20 AM

That Terribulus seems to be supporting the creation of vacuums seems somehow logical. Given the one between his tabs.

Nice to see Keith admit he learned "thou shalt not kill" after all. Although if you can forget such a simple statement as a Christian when even I, a rational person can recall it did seem a little odd.

Joe keeps insisting that you can't paint all members of the same cult with the same brush. Seems so, but it also means the term "Christian" has no base, no way of identifying and no common creed. Ditto other cults of course, but it is the Christian cult that tries to influence our society most. Sunday trading is being voted on again I notice. Notwithstanding concerns of worker exploitation, the undercurrent of the day belonging to an entity has raised its head again. Fine, but for the majority of the people in The UK who are actively religious, Friday prayers are the order of the day. Luckily, Muslims in secular societies don't insist on rational people being affected by their special day in the same way Christians do.

What is obvious is that the mindset that can ascribe reality to fantasy objects are also unable to distinguish between interpretation and translation. Hence Keith's insistence on "mistake in KFV" rather than differing interpretations.

There again, he says Jesus understood it to mean murder, so no hope really when you invoke a fictitious character in your attempts to push a dubious point.

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 09 Mar 16 - 03:10 AM

"In 2005, the UK became the first major arms trading power to support an Arms Trade Treaty "
The British Government sells arms to States which use them to commit war crimes and to suppress their people - in defending them you are defending those crimes.
Your god isn't in heaven - he sits in Westminster issuing licences for weapons to be used in killing for profit and oppression.
Your 'Christianity' ignores some of the most profound and important teachings of the Christian doctrine - making you a hypocrite.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: Teribus
Date: 09 Mar 16 - 02:58 AM

"The George W. Bush administration had a term for its rationalization of its invasion of Iraq, but I forget what the term was. They claimed that since Iraq had amassed "weapons of mass destruction," the U.S. invasion was justified. Iraq hadn't done anything wrong yet, but the Bushies figured they were a credible threat, and thus must be eliminated."

Joe on another thread you take Donuel to task for posting and presenting information as fact that is incorrect.

Initial identification that Saddam Hussein and the Ba'athist Regime in Iraq was a thread to the stability and peace of the region predates the administration of George W Bush by almost two decades.

UNSCOM and later UNMOVIC Inspections and reports indicated what WMD Iraq MAY BE HOLDING There were no statements of fact made about possession of WMD by Iraq, there were statements related to what the leaders of numerous countries believed Iraq might be holding and producing.

President Bill Clinton pushed through the Iraq Bill in the summer of 1998 that made "Regime Change in Iraq" official US Foreign Policy.

The attacks of the 11th September 2001 showed the world how vulnerable states are to asymmetric attack by anonymous terrorists. The US Security Agencies joined up the dots to assess that any such future attack supported behind the scenes by a hostile regime that possessed WMD or WMD material and knowledge could be catastrophic on a much larger scale.

As for "Iraq hadn't done anything wrong yet" - Incorrect - The primary reason for the 2003 invasion of Iraq was the undeniable fact that under Saddam Hussein Iraq had failed to meet the terms and conditions of the ceasefire Iraq had signed up to in March 1991 at Safwan. In 1945 had either the Germans or the Japanese failed to meet the ceasefire terms agreed with the Allied powers then the fighting would have resumed.

In March 2003 Iraq was invaded in order to establish and put beyond doubt once and for all in a verifiable manner that Iraq possessed NO WMD, NO WMD capability and had NO means of delivering WMD.

"the Bushies figured they were a credible threat, and thus must be eliminated."

No they didn't, the previous Clinton Administration did, all 19 of the USA's Intelligence and Security Agencies did, the Joint House Security Committee of the US Congress did and, whether you wish to accept the fact or not, the truth remains that the findings and recommendations of the latter two would have remained exactly the same irrespective of who had won the 2000 Presidential Election.

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Mar 16 - 02:14 AM

Steve,
But Keith thinks that killing of that sort isn't covered by commandments.

Yes Keith does.
I said that the decision was taken on political not faith grounds, and it was.

Dave, I have a deep loathing for the Saudi regime, and do not approve of arming them.
The decision to sell to them is again political and no faith, church or commandment had any bearing on it.
Again, why raise spurious arguments in a discussion on religion and the commandments?

I

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 09 Mar 16 - 12:56 AM

See??...If only people would just "Do unto others as you'd have them do unto you"...you wouldn't have such futile 'discussions' about guns, killing, what the 'true definition' of OK killing versus murder, abortion, politics and churches......and why nobody will listen to your music.

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Mar 16 - 08:12 PM

Rationalisation for starting a war (which will always without exception involve killing innocent civilians, a blatant violation of the fifth commandment) is commonly effected by demonising your enemy, illustrated so well by Orwell in "1984." We have the Axis of Evil, the Great Satan, the Hun, the Evil Empire; we blame groups for outrages without evidence (think of how many groups got it in the neck for 9/11 or for the Lockerbie bombing), we associate our enemy of the moment with negatives such as WMDs (doesn't refer to Russia, Saudi, Israel, Britain or the US, does it?), we coin phrases intended to form indelible negative associations such as "Islamic terror", etc. Everyone agrees that public beheadings are brutal, inhumane and obscene. The handful committed by Islamic State are banner headlines around the world. The hundreds committed every year by Saudi Arabia hardly get a look-in. But then we need their oil and their custom in our weapons industries...

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 08 Mar 16 - 07:41 PM

You so called "Christians" are ................. words defy me ......... they really do..................

Peace, Love, Understanding.......... do any of you have ANY concept of the meaning of these words ??

I am so saddened that my fellow man, my fellow folkies, people who I would have hoped would have shared a common sense of humanity with myself can be so evil.

I can think of no other word to describe it.

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: Joe Offer
Date: 08 Mar 16 - 06:23 PM

The George W. Bush administration had a term for its rationalization of its invasion of Iraq, but I forget what the term was. They claimed that since Iraq had amassed "weapons of mass destruction," the U.S. invasion was justified. Iraq hadn't done anything wrong yet, but the Bushies figured they were a credible threat, and thus must be eliminated.
What name did they give to their rationalization?

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Mar 16 - 06:03 PM

Situations like that require a judgement as to which evil is the lesser. The judgement may be relatively simple (kill a man who is rampaging through a school shooting children) or it may require someone to play God. I asked Keith about whether the evil of dropping two atom bombs on Japanese civilians was the lesser evil than one which had yet to occur. In my view, that was playing God because you were presuming the future occurrence of an evil that might never have happened (and not least because there were alternative ways open that could have threatened the regime in Japan that wouldn't have involved all the carnage). But Keith thinks that killing of that sort isn't covered by commandments. Well I think that an injunction not to kill, or not to murder, whatever slant you want to put on it, that doesn't cover the deliberate immolation of thousands of innocents isn't worth the tablet it's inscribed on.

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: Joe Offer
Date: 08 Mar 16 - 05:23 PM

Raggytash says: I've had a response from my mate the Vicar...She has replied that she doesn't believe there is such a thing as a justified killing. She says God gives life(she is a vicar)and only God has the right to take it away.

Hi, Raggytash. I'd generally agree with that, but then I wonder about situations where a person is called upon to defend himself, his family, or another innocent person. Is it never justifiable for a police officer to kill a person who is in the act of shooting others?

According to the system of moral theology I was taught in seminary, I would call killing "objectively evil" - in all circumstances, a life is lost. But there are circumstances where killing is necessary to prevent greater harm, where killing is the "lesser of two evils."


What about situations like that?

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Mar 16 - 03:38 PM

Steve, why raise purely political issues in a discussion about religion and the commandments?
That decision does not reflect on any faith or church, so why raise it?

Jim, read what Amnesty says about the "Big Six" arms trading nations and then explain why you always and only single out Britain.

"Generally supportive of strict criteria for arms transfers, the UK has nonetheless supplied arms to countries where there is a substantial risk that they could be used to commit serious violations of human rights."

"In 2005, the UK became the first major arms trading power to support an Arms Trade Treaty covering human rights. With France it helped establish the EU code that has now become the EU Common Position on Arms Exports, the starting point for UK policy positions on the ATT. It also co-authored various UN General Assembly resolutions between 2006 and 2009 leading to the current negotiations. The UK has generally supported the Golden Rule and has progressive positions on the treaty's scope and implementation mechanisms (for example backing robust transparency measures). "
https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2012/06/big-six-arms-exporters/

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Mar 16 - 03:20 PM

"<<>>

I do not believe that the opinion of any church was sought on that decision.
It was a political decision."

So it's ok to vaporise thousands of people in a few seconds as long as you didn't ask the God Squad first. This is getting quite amusing, Keith.

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 08 Mar 16 - 03:00 PM

"It is the most restricted of any nation."
It sells to terrorist States and Human rights abusers
Didn't think for one minute that you were going to fess up
You are a Hypocrite
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Mar 16 - 02:38 PM

It gives the lie to the likes of some on this forum.

It does not.
Would your vicar stand by and watch someone stabbing her children, or stop them.
Either way, it is her personal position and does not make it a lie to hold a different one.

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 08 Mar 16 - 02:20 PM

I've had a response from my mate the Vicar, I've known her for over 40 years. She, and her husband are people, I deeply respect, admire and love.

(she's a beautiful singer and her husband is pretty mean on a guitar by the way)

She has replied that she doesn't believe there is such a thing as a justified killing. She says God gives life(she is a vicar)and only God has the right to take it away.

She did go on to say that she believes people get their just reward, in this life or the next, which leads me to ponder whether that some people on this forum may be in for a bit of s shock.

It gives the lie to the likes of some on this forum.

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 08 Mar 16 - 02:07 PM

"It is the most restricted of any nation."

Apart from the majority of nations in the world, who don't sell arms to anyone at all, because they don't even manufacture them.

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 08 Mar 16 - 02:04 PM

Keith:

"I do condemn the selling of arms to "whoever will buy them."
Discrimination is required."

Well if the discrimination of a particular country is such that it involves selling them to
the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, then its pretty useless discrimination in my view.

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Mar 16 - 01:48 PM

Ignore the idiotic troll, Jim. Have asked the mods not to invoke Godwin's Law.

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: Donuel
Date: 08 Mar 16 - 12:57 PM

Suppose you know a social psychopathic disgraced ex policeman who murdered unarmed black kids and sold hard ball ammunition to African nations. Naturally he is a veteran.

What would you do?

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Mar 16 - 12:46 PM

British policy is NOT "selling arms to whoever will buy them."

It is the most restricted of any nation.
Here are lists of the very many countries that Britain refuses to supply.
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/current-arms-embargoes-and-other-restrictions

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 08 Mar 16 - 12:03 PM

"I do condemn the selling of arms to "whoever will buy them.""
Then we agree that the British policy on selling arms to whoever will buy them is evil - do I have that right?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Mar 16 - 11:57 AM

Now unless you went to a very progressive school you were taught the same. For centuries we have understood "thou shalt not kill"

I suppose I was, but I always knew that it did not forbid my parents and relations fighting Nazism in WW2, so that must have been discussed and explained.
Any kid would question that lethal force could never be used to prevent greater evils.

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Mar 16 - 11:51 AM

Steve,

I still wouldn't mind knowing whether there's a bit in the Bible that advises us how to decide which of two evils is the lesser. I suppose someone decided that incinerating tens of thousands of Japanese civilians was less evil than an evil that hadn't even happened yet.

I do not believe that the opinion of any church was sought on that decision.
It was a political decision.

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Mar 16 - 11:36 AM

Jim,
I take it you are not going to explain your justification of profiting on the taking of lives by selling instruments of killing to whoever will buy them

I do condemn the selling of arms to "whoever will buy them."
Discrimination is required.

Others, unless you are a pacifist, then you must accept that resisting evil with lethal force is sometimes necessary. Consider the gunman on a school shooting spree.

Targeting children is never justified, and I do not know why you accuse me of thinking it is.