I think were guilty of our good works forever too, but then I'm an unforgiving motherfucker.
I think were guilty of our good works forever too, but then I'm an unforgiving motherfucker.
Killing someone in a car accident is completely different. There's obviously no intent to kill them.Originally Posted by John_and_Yoko
Do you think the soldier that pulled the trigger took pleasure from it? Or did he kill Bin Laden of out necessity in order to save other lives?
@Iwritecode: I'd like to flip your last question around, if I may: I wonder how many people here who have said such things actually mean them--it's easy to SAY you would love to have pulled the trigger yourself, but suppose you were actually in that position for real. I wonder if you still would have derived pleasure from transforming a living, breathing human being into a bloodied corpse that you only see in movies you'd never take children to see, and one that (unlike in the movies) you can't cut away from once he's dead. He's still there, a mess all over the place, until you clean up that mess--meaning you handle the body. If anyone actually DID enjoy that, I'd be worried about them.
I'm sure most of the people who have said things like that were just bluffing, but my point is: think about what you're saying when it comes to matters of life and death.
"There are not even 100 people in this country who hate the Catholic Church, but there are millions who hate what they think the Catholic Church to be."
--Archbishop Fulton Sheen
That's why I let the US military kill the people that kill innocent Americans instead.
But if you're not willing to do it yourself, why would you make someone else do it? Isn't that what bin Laden did? I could be mistaken, but I thought he was the head man, who ordered people's deaths rather than actually doing it himself. Again, how is that any different?
"There are not even 100 people in this country who hate the Catholic Church, but there are millions who hate what they think the Catholic Church to be."
--Archbishop Fulton Sheen
At the end of the day, I don't care about the evil vs. good or "we're all just humans and can't be responsible for our own actions" BS. It's called crime & punishment. I can't help but celebrate when there's one less murdering criminal in the world. I don't care if he's in heaven or hell or screwing virgins in a fantasyland. He's not here and that's why I celebrate. To quote Batman "It's not who we are, but what we do that defines us". I don't care that we're all innately good but choose to do bad. It's about our actions. Actions call for more action. Who gives me the right to judge a murdering criminal or sentence him to death? I DO. As a fellow human being who cares about other fellow human beings who choose to do good things, I DO.
I'm not going to get into an argument with you, Ben Staad.
I'm only going to say that Batman was wrong. What we do is determined by what we value, which is determined by how we think, which is determined by our experiences and our genetics. What we do REFLECTS us, it doesn't DEFINE us. That quote doesn't even make logical sense. How is it possible that "who we are" does NOT "define us"? That's nonsensical.
"There are not even 100 people in this country who hate the Catholic Church, but there are millions who hate what they think the Catholic Church to be."
--Archbishop Fulton Sheen
I think we must be judged (by each other at least) by our actions. If we judge by intents we're all damned god or not. I'd say all of us are guilty of some evil intents at times. It's what we choose to do with those intents that ultimately counts. Then if it turns out I'm wrong and there is a god that punishes based on our thoughts and wills I can go to hell secure in the knowledge that I'm right and he's wrong. That alone will make any punishment bearable for me.
Damn, I'm an arrogant bitch.
Damn you arrogance, Brice! You should aim to be like me! I'm not arrogant, in fact I'm probably one of the most modest people you will ever meet!
Oh, and my thoughts on Bin Laden's death? Well, with the recent conflicting news reports saying that he hid behind his wife before revealing, no, sorry, that was bullshit, and then finding out that he was unarmed and that they were specifically sent in to kill him and not capture him alive, well all i can think of is, "Well, I wonder how many baseless conspiracy theories will crop out of this little bit of news? Hey, at least it keeps those pointlessly paranoid fucks happy."
And now, we're on a raised terror alert because we've got possible sodding revenge attacks to worry about. Great. Something else for us Brits to complain about. Comedian Rich Hall hit the nail on the head when he described us: "A few buses blow up, and the next day, you're all at the bus stop, waiting for the bus. And complaining about it, because you're Brits!"
If Bin Laden could've been captured instead of killed, I may have a slight problem with that, unless it's just a little more news that journalists got wrong. Justice should've been done, especially to a man responsible for the deaths of so many lives, abso-fucking-lutely, and i know a lot of things aren't black and white, but here's the thing: if you kill an unarmed man instead of just arresting the sod, make him rot in prison and let him die alone, forgotten, and stripped of all power he might've had in death, well...I'm not gonna say that there wouldn't be any difference between you and an evil bastard, of course there's a difference. I'm just saying that making an order like that will decrease the difference.
But then, i've been reading so many conflicting news reports over the past few days that I don't know what to think anymore, and I really shouldn't be giving an opinion on it at all. It's not that I don't know anything about his death that pisses me off, it's that I know that I don't know anything about his death. Meh, I'm just gonna end this post and watch some more Rich Hall take the piss out of us Brits!
Never be cruel and never be cowardly. And if you ever are, always make amends.
You are a walking talking Doctor Who encyclopedia to me. - Melike
and yet... you're on a site dedicated to those who receive pleasure from reading books about a whole lot of killing... you should burn all your Dark towers immediately.
do you not find it just a tiny a bit hypocritical to enjoy reading about the same thing you so despise?
No, I don't--because that's not why I derive pleasure from the books. I derive pleasure from the books because I'm drawn into the story, into the world(s) of the story, and into the lives of the characters. If I were to go that far I'd have to reject all fairy tales, wouldn't I? But fairy tales are for children who can't yet comprehend the difference between a villain and a villain's acts, which is why the wicked stepmother exists--she represents the "dark" side of the MOTHER, at least from the child's perspective, because the MOTHER can't be a villain. She's the mother, after all.
"There are not even 100 people in this country who hate the Catholic Church, but there are millions who hate what they think the Catholic Church to be."
--Archbishop Fulton Sheen
one thing that i've been thinking about which has been troubling me is this: now that we've finally killed him, has the united states lost it's (ocassionally dubious anyway) claim to the moral high ground in our conflict with violent islamic extremists?
if the worlds gonna end then let's get it over with, i got shit to do
We seem to be getting farther and farther away from the main point and now somehow have come to a civilian vs. military leader.
I'm not making anyone do anything. The soldiers that killed him were there because they choose to be there to protect people like you and me from other people that want to kill us. It's their job and what they are paid and trained to do. It's just like any other job. Now there is one less person in the worlds that likes to purposely kill innocent people.
Who's to say it wouldn't have been one of us that got caught up in the next terrorist attack that he came up with? Now he won't get that chance.
the cost of bin laden...
http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_exclus...-over-15-years
and that's not counting the lives lost...
sorry, It still just confounds me that anyone could think paying a single dollar more to house him, and suggesting to reform him would have been a better option.
and I'm amazed that anyone could not celebrate his demise.
it's like alien thought patterns to me... I'll never understand that point of view...it's simply beyond my realm of reasoning... and my ability to forgive. can't do it.
I'm sorry to hear you say that--I did try to explain myself, but it's difficult to communicate when you come from completely different paradigms.
I just have one question, and please don't take this the wrong way.... When you say "and my ability to forgive", are you talking about bin Laden there, or are you talking about ME? I think and hope you meant bin Laden, because I truly fear for you if you think that I have forfeited my own human rights and deserve to die.
Responding to violence with violence justifies violence and therefore justifies the violence committed by the one you exercise violence upon.
"There are not even 100 people in this country who hate the Catholic Church, but there are millions who hate what they think the Catholic Church to be."
--Archbishop Fulton Sheen
I'm sorry to hear you say that--I did try to explain myself, but it's difficult to communicate when you come from completely different paradigms.
I just have one question, and please don't take this the wrong way.... When you say "and my ability to forgive", are you talking about bin Laden there, or are you talking about ME? I think and hope you meant bin Laden, because I truly fear for you if you think that I have forfeited my own human rights and deserve to die.
Responding to violence with violence justifies violence and therefore justifies the violence committed by the one you exercise violence upon.
no no... not you...having an opinion that differs doesn't make you evil and doesn't make me write you off... you still have time to become enlighten
I just can't understand your opinion - it is way too foreign to me.
and I do have capacity to forgive in most cases... but not enough to forgive a cold blooded murderer like bin Laden - nor do I have any desire to have that much capacity for forgiveness... it's against my core belief that an eye for an eye punishment is just.
Okay, I think you just said it right there: "enlightened". What exactly is it that you consider me to be in the dark about? That's not rhetorical, I'd like to know how you would answer. Because I acknowledge that bin Laden is responsible for the deaths of many innocent people, and I acknowledge that this is an atrocious act that causes intense pain and suffering for the living. I'm not in the dark on either of those matters.
I just find it hard to reconcile the word "enlightened" with your lack of desire to have that much capacity for forgiveness. Forgiveness is a WEAPON--it's the only effective weapon against evil and violence because it's the only thing evil can't understand and doesn't like. Violence and killing are things evil CAN understand and DOES like. What if YOU were guilty of what bin Laden did? Would you really NOT want to forgive YOURSELF? Or to be forgiven by others? Would you resign yourself to the idea that you had forfeited your OWN human rights and that YOU deserved to die? Would you try to make that happen as soon as possible, to prevent yourself from doing more evil, by taking your own life? I sincerely hope not.
And by the way, "an eye for an eye" is from the Bible, specifically the OLD Testament, and it's meant to condemn EXCESSIVE punishment for wrongs: "ONE eye for ONE eye."
"There are not even 100 people in this country who hate the Catholic Church, but there are millions who hate what they think the Catholic Church to be."
--Archbishop Fulton Sheen
My, my...tetchy!
Did you not see the 'smiley' wink in Sir_Boomme's post?
it must be this damned Take 5 background color .... it yellows my smiley teeth...and gives me coffee breath.<= I guess I should have used the tongue-in-cheek smiley instead.
but.... to address J & Y's comments from above:
"What if YOU were guilty of what bin Laden did? Would you really NOT want to forgive YOURSELF? Or to be forgiven by others? Would you resign yourself to the idea that you had forfeited your OWN human rights and that YOU deserved to die? "
if I had made the decision and played part in killing 3000+ innocent men, women, and children.... and I became enlightened ... and reformed my ways... I would expect no forgiveness from anyone, including myself...and I would enact the justice upon myself and kill myself; because if I was trully reformed - I would not be able to live with what I had done.
If I was not reformed - then I deserve whatever I got anyways.
are you suggesting that if you killed 3000+ innocent men women and children... YOU could forgive yourself and YOU could live with what you had done?
"And by the way, "an eye for an eye" is from the Bible, specifically the OLD Testament, and it's meant to condemn EXCESSIVE punishment for wrongs: "ONE eye for ONE eye." "
Even though I am an athiest... I have read the entire bible several times...and totally realize the eye for an eye qoute came from it... one of several biblical quotes I happen to agree with.
just like you said...one eye, for one eye... (bin Laden didn't have 6000+ eyes...though I do understand the SEAL took out one of his)
the actual passage is:
And thine eye shall not pity; life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot. -Deuteronomy 19:21
...My interpretation of the biblical quote is that it is for equal punishment - i.e. not excessive and not less than - but equal.
thus as it clearly states....one life for one life.
unfortunately, bin laden couldn't t be executed 3000+ times.
Note: My actual opinion isn't reflecting or based on the biblical quote - but rather, the biblical quote just happens to reflect my personal viewpoint.
Well, I'm sorry you wouldn't be able to forgive yourself.Because that isn't the same thing as being truly reformed. Being able to forgive yourself doesn't mean ignoring or justifying--it means being sorry and determined to make amends and to avoid doing it again.
Okay, mea culpa, I didn't know you had read the entire Bible (several times? Wow.... I haven't even read the whole thing ONCE yet....). But I did say in my above post that it's from the Old Testament, not the New Testament. Things have changed since then. I know you're an atheist, but I meant to point that out. "An eye for an eye" was an improvement over what came before, but now it's been replaced with "turn the other cheek". And I don't know if you're familiar with the reasoning behind that, but that doesn't mean being passive--that means forcing the other (without resorting to violence or hatred) to treat you like an equal, not like an inferior. Specifically the line says that if someone strikes your RIGHT cheek, turn the other as well--if someone right-handed strikes your right cheek, they're doing it with the back of their hand, like to an inferior. But if someone right-handed strikes your LEFT cheek, they have to do it with the palm of their hand, which is softer.
"There are not even 100 people in this country who hate the Catholic Church, but there are millions who hate what they think the Catholic Church to be."
--Archbishop Fulton Sheen
Yeah - reading/rereading and analyzing the Bible is why I am athiest....as you point out, it has contradictions, a bunch of them... Eye for eye or turn the other cheek.... which is it?
If the bible is what the entire God theory is based on (which it basically is)... then it needs to be factually correct... and divinely inspired to be correct.
However, if it changes the rules from one text to the next - that implies that the previous part was incorrect, which impies that either the divinity that inspired it was flawed the first time around (though that god is supposed to be perfect), or that the men that were picked to write down "god's words" got it wrong half the time.... which makes all the text a crapshoot and anyone's guess as to what is actually factual. It also suggests that "the god" selected the wrong people to write down his words.... which also would suggest imperfection in the divine perfection.
but that is all fodder for a different thread, and not really something I want to clutter this thread up with.... we can spar that topic in the amicable fodder, son-of-a and ghost with holes thread if anyone really really wants to.
but that's why I said....while the biblical text may reflect my point of view... My viewpoint isn't derived from the biblical text.
This is getting a little off-topic, but that's not a contradiction, that's God holding people to a higher standard because He was including EVERYONE in the New Covenant, not just the Israelites/Jews. As you know, even "eye for eye" was an improvement over the "justice" that came before.
It isn't like a flashlight, where it's either on (correct) or off (incorrect). It's a spectrum, going closer and closer to perfection over time. By that logic, each successive covenant negates all previous because God didn't hold earlier generations to the same standard. It's humanity that's not perfect, and God knows it. I'm sorry you see it as all or nothing. Who would be the "right" people? We're ALL flawed.
Yes, it is, so let's leave it at that.
"There are not even 100 people in this country who hate the Catholic Church, but there are millions who hate what they think the Catholic Church to be."
--Archbishop Fulton Sheen
can't let it lie....
"We're ALL flawed."
so... is god flawed?
No--but He is one, and alone in His oneness. And that's all I'll say.
Back on-topic?
"There are not even 100 people in this country who hate the Catholic Church, but there are millions who hate what they think the Catholic Church to be."
--Archbishop Fulton Sheen
can't go totally back yet... because it does directly apply to the topic...
please. you have to say more....
so god is not flawed, yet god kills... many times over it's stated in the bible....
Job 34:26 He striketh them as wicked men in the open sight of others;
so, if killing is against God's rules and Jesus sermon on the mount....
you state:
that's God holding people to a higher standard because He was including EVERYONE in the New Covenant, not just the Israelites/Jews.
so... God now holds ALL imperfect man to a higher standard than he holds his perfect self?
he can kill the wicked... but we can not?
what is Good for the goose, is not also Good for the gander...
another point... if the new testemant supercedes the old... and the old were the words of god... and the new credited as the teachings of Jesus...
does Jesus's words supercedes god's.... does jesus knock god off his throne and claim it for himself?
if god were perfect and all knowing... should he have not foreseen man's future imperfections and thus made the original (old Testament) perfect and able to to appy for all time? so now the bible is a living document just like the U.S. constitution?
last point on this post.
a quote of university Professor Pakaluk poses a very interesting query:
... "If no crime deserves the death penalty, then it is hard to see why it was fitting that Christ be put to death for our sins…. If we didn't deserve the death penalty ourselves, then why would Christ need to suffer it on our behalf in order to satisfy the justice of God? Denying the death penalty directly assaults the justice of the Father—the One who required His own Son to pay precisely that price in our stead. "
again... I hate refering to a book I don't put any factual trust in to aid in validation of my stance... but I'm doing so because at least part of your argument for not killing the wicked is derived from new testament philosophies.
Posting Permissions
