Could Suicide Bombers be the Saints of the 21st Century?

[MumboJumbo]

Mumbo,
there is really no reason to continue this topic. You think that a person can kill all the women and children they want to champion a cause. This is a disgusting and vile thought.

We did not kill innocents in WWII because we wanted to, but because we thought we had to or because our technology made it impossible not to. Today, we have learned, through events like the Battle of Britton, that bombing civilians DOES NOT HELP.

Please, get psychological help.

Since you confuse bringing up the subject of terrorism with endorsing it, you may want your next topic less taxing, like “Who likes chocolate pudding!”.

 

[ralphinal]

Since you confuse bringing up the subject of terrorism with endorsing it, you may want your next topic less taxing, like “Who likes chocolate pudding!”.

Yes or no question, Mumbo, yes or no…

Is it acceptable to kill innocents to further a cause?

 

[East_Anglican]

Could Suicide Bombers be the Saints of the 21st Century?

Such a question is so ridiculous it’s not worth answering.

The people that clean up the mess these selfish b"!£$%^ds make are more like saints than them.

Of course they’re selfish! They do it foer eternity with ten virgins and stuff!

 

[rpp]

yes or no question, mumbo, yes or no…

Is it acceptable to kill innocents to further a cause?

dnawacm

 

[MumboJumbo]

Yes or no question, Mumbo, yes or no…

Is it acceptable to kill innocents to further a cause?

I already answered that question based on history.
Since history shows that it has been acceptable in the past, it will be acceptable in the future.

General Le May, the man responsible for the bombing strategy in the Pacific during WW2 said, “If the Japanese win, I’ll be considered a war criminal.”

 

[ralphinal]

I already answered that question based on history.
Since history shows that it has been acceptable in the past, it will be acceptable in the future.

Then, by this logic, it is acceptable to kill Jews because they killed Jesus. Slavery of African Americans is acceptable. Women should not be allowed to work outside the home. Men should have the right to rape their wives…I can go on

My God touch your heart.

I am done with this discussion.

 

[MumboJumbo]

Then, by this logic, it is acceptable to kill Jews because they killed Jesus. Slavery of African Americans is acceptable. Women should not be allowed to work outside the home. Men should have the right to rape their wives…I can go on

Don’t bother. First Jews are not the enemy of the civilized world. Even if you could find the actual descendants of those who killed Jesus, what would be the point in killing them since they had nothing to do with the actual killing.

What does slavery have anything to do with this post?

What does women working outside the home have anything to do with this post?

What does men raping their wives have anything to do with this post?

Shall I go on?

 

[ralphinal]

Don’t bother. First Jews are not the enemy of the civilized world. Even if you could find the actual descendants of those who killed Jesus, what would be the point in killing them since they had nothing to do with the actual killing.

What does slavery have anything to do with this post?

What does women working outside the home have anything to do with this post?

What does men raping their wives have anything to do with this post?

Shall I go on?

 

[MumboJumbo]

**
Re: Could Suicide Bombers be the Saints of the 21st Century?

Quote:

Don’t bother. First Jews are not the enemy of the civilized world. Even if you could find the actual descendants of those who killed Jesus, what would be the point in killing them since they had nothing to do with the actual killing.

What does slavery have anything to do with this post?

What does women working outside the home have anything to do with this post?

What does men raping their wives have anything to do with this post?

**Shall I go on? **

Again, you are missing the point.

You said that history says it is acceptable to kill innocents to acheive a goal, so it is acceptable today. These are other things history accepted.

Again, is it acceptable IN YOUR MIND to kill innocents to acheive a goal?

You are asking me for my personal opinion and I am showing you how the world would answer you. What does the opinion of one person matter.

I have also explained that ALL killing is wrong. But some killing is necessary. If you ask me “Is it acceptable to live in an evil world when that evil could have been removed years earlier but at the price of some innocent, my answer is NO!” This is why wars are fought. To remove evil!

You never explain what the goal is, therfore I cannot answer the question you ask.

The goal could be making a profit like drug dealers kill innocent people with their drugs!

The drug dealer finds those death acceptable to make a profit( his goal)!**

 

[ralphinal]

**

 

[MumboJumbo]

**

The answer is always no. If you say yes, you have no value for human life and are morally evil.

There is NEVER an acceptable time to kill an innocent**

Then you would prefer that you and your family would live in an evil filled world.
And since God destroyed the world once already to remove all evil, you consider His decision unacceptable too.

 

[ralphinal]

ralphinal;5121507:

Then you would prefer that you and your family would live in an evil filled world.

And you would not?

Mumbo, there are moral absolutes. Killing innocents is ALWAYS wrong

 

[MumboJumbo]

MumboJumbo;5121604:

And you would not?

Mumbo, there are moral absolutes. Killing innocents is ALWAYS wrong

Nothing is absolute. There are situations that I would prefer to see my family dead than to go through, like the Holocaust.

 

[ralphinal]

ralphinal;5121616:

Nothing is absolute. There are situations that I would prefer to see my family dead than to go through, like the Holocaust.

No, Mumbo, there are.

See, you are an unfortunate victom of the moral relativism of this world. You seem to hold to a concept that the end justifies the means. That is false. The end may or may not justify the means, and typically does not.

I would not want my family to go through a Holocost, either. However, you must understand that it is not my decision to make. In the end, God has a plan, and I cannot change it. You might not understand, but good did come from the Holocost. Saints like Maxamilian Kolbe. We had a shift in the understanding of the Jewish people. We began to see all human life as having value. The depth of human evil was shown once again, and from time to time, we need to see how bad we can be if left unchecked.

I suggest that you begin to study the teachings of the Catholic Church with regard to morality. You will see that some things are always good and some are always evil. There are not always gray areas there. Please unlearn this concept of moral relativism that you have.

Suicide bombers are always evil. Period. End of story.

Those who support them are either evil or idiots.

 

[MumboJumbo]

MumboJumbo;5121625:

No, Mumbo, there are.

See, you are an unfortunate victom of the moral relativism of this world. You seem to hold to a concept that the end justifies the means. That is false. The end may or may not justify the means, and typically does not.

I would not want my family to go through a Holocost, either. However, you must understand that it is not my decision to make. In the end, God has a plan, and I cannot change it. You might not understand, but good did come from the Holocost. Saints like Maxamilian Kolbe. We had a shift in the understanding of the Jewish people. We began to see all human life as having value. The depth of human evil was shown once again, and from time to time, we need to see how bad we can be if left unchecked.

I suggest that you begin to study the teachings of the Catholic Church with regard to morality. You will see that some things are always good and some are always evil. There are not always gray areas there. Please unlearn this concept of moral relativism that you have.

Suicide bombers are always evil. Period. End of story.

Those who support them are either evil or idiots.

People will also be held accountable for allowing things to happen by doing nothing.

It takes far more courage to act when the choices for action are repugnant, than to take no action and deny all responsibility for what happens. To make no decision at all is not to avoid responsibility; it is to endorse whatever decision is reached by others. It is meaningless to oppose a plan, however onerous the plan may be, if you offer no substitute course of action. Sticking your head in the sand does not absolve you from responsibility for what happens around you. Doing nothing is no solution to a moral dilemma but merely avoidance of a solution.

Christians are, therefore, faced with a dilemma: when assaulted by evil, they must oppose it through direct action. They have no other option. Any failure to act is simply to condone evil.
Ethics… Dietrich Bonhoeffer

And Dietrich Bonhoeffer is the saint who with others plotted to kill Hitler.

 

[ralphinal]

ralphinal;5121649:

People will also be held accountable for allowing things to happen by doing nothing.

It takes far more courage to act when the choices for action are repugnant, than to take no action and deny all responsibility for what happens. To make no decision at all is not to avoid responsibility; it is to endorse whatever decision is reached by others. It is meaningless to oppose a plan, however onerous the plan may be, if you offer no substitute course of action. Sticking your head in the sand does not absolve you from responsibility for what happens around you. Doing nothing is no solution to a moral dilemma but merely avoidance of a solution.

Christians are, therefore, faced with a dilemma: when assaulted by evil, they must oppose it through direct action. They have no other option. Any failure to act is simply to condone evil.

Ethics… Dietrich Bonhoeffer

And Dietrich Bonhoeffer is the saint who with others plotted to kill Hitler.

You are correct that doing nothing is not an answer. However, that does not change the fact that killing innocents is always ALWAYS wrong.

And Bonhoffer is not a saint. He may have been brave. He may have been holy, but we do not have proof of his being a saint.

You need to learn the meaning of the term

 

[rpp]

Suicide bombers are the very definition of cowards. It is very easy to kill oneself. It is living that takes courage.

Those who admire or support suicide bombers are the very definition of what “mentally ill” means. In short, if a person likes them, they are crazy.

My mother (and Billy Joel) taught me to never argue with a crazy man.

 

[MumboJumbo]

MumboJumbo;5121754:

You are correct that doing nothing is not an answer. However, that does not change the fact that killing innocents is always ALWAYS wrong.

And Bonhoffer is not a saint. He may have been brave. He may have been holy, but we do not have proof of his being a saint.

You need to learn the meaning of the term

His actions are all anyone needs to see he was a saint. His actions spoke louder than words.

 

[ralphinal]

ralphinal;5121908:

His actions are all anyone needs to see he was a saint. His actions spoke louder than words.

No, his actions do not proove sainthood. Sorry, they do not.

Sainthood is more than dying for what is right. Sainthood is being an example of the life of Christ to such a level that there is no doubt that the person is in heaven. It does not matter how or when he died. What matters is if he was the best example of Christ he could have been. To that end, one typically needs miracles performed in their name to show sainthood. He has none. He is considered a martyr by a handfull of denominations, but that does not proove anything, either.

Again, killing innocents is ALWAYS evil. ALWAYS. ALWAYS. ALWAYS.

 

[rpp]

ralphinal;5121908:

His actions are all anyone needs to see he was a saint. His actions spoke louder than words.

“Saint” has a very specific meaning. Bonhoffer is not a saint. To be a saint, one must, among other things, be canonized by the Catholic Church.