Convert Facing Death Sentence

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='Hassan' post='1903368' date='Jun 28 2009, 01:20 AM']He was a self identified Christian. I would not deny him his Christianity any more than Osama Bin Ladin his Islam. Both have deviated from the traditional teachings of their faith on numerous positions. I view religion generally from the position of the social sciences. I can conduct a historical analysis and examine the conformity or discrepancy between the historic teachings of their faiths and the mens individual actions, but deciding who is or is not a "true" Christian or a "true" Muslim goes outside my capacity. I think it's safe to say that gang raping Bosnian women is not a tenant of Christianity. However when the soldiers committing the actions identify themselves as Serbian Orthodox Christians, and the soldiers assaulting Sarajevo have an Icon of the Virgin Mary tied on the Hilt of their Rifle I would classify them as Christians. I don't think it's fair to excommunicate Christian murders and divorce them from their faith for breaking from its traditional teachings but keeping individuals who identify themselves as Muslim tied to their Islamic identity when they also break from the traditional teachings of their religion.[/quote]


[color="#2E8B57"]I agree. That one violates the moral tenets of ones Faith does not mean one does not have it.

Can you be specific on what traditional teachings of Islam Osama deviates from?
I think his actions regarding warfare agiant non-muslims and even Mulims of the wrong variety ( don't get me wrong I am not being critical of the inter-muslim split, and the violence that has resulted from it, coming from a Chirstian that would be laughable) seem to be in keeping with the historical actions of Islam.
[/color]

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='Marie-Therese' post='1903907' date='Jun 28 2009, 03:24 PM']Hassan and Don John, you are both correct. In no way do I have the ability to judge the hearts or faith of anyone. I cannot say that a person was not Christian, I can only say that their actions are not so. I stand chastened. Begging pardon. I should have said that McVeigh's actions were not Christian. I will be more careful in future to make my intentions clearer.
[color="#2E8B57"]
No problem. [/color]



Don John, I am sorry, but I cannot say anything more than this is WRONG. The Magisterium, through its statements in the CCC, have made stipulations for just war (i.e. defense of the helpless or the overthrow of a dictatorial regime) and for the defense of one's self and one's family.


[color="#2E8B57"]The CCC is binding on Catholics in this area, in that it is the current teaching of the Magisterium. It is no treally all that consistant with the tradition of the Church but regarrdless is certianly not binding on our "Seperated Brethren". A Protestant believes ( excepting I suppoe the Anglicans), as a matter of Doctrine, that he is obliged to act on their own interpretation of Scripture. This might be an arguement agianst Protestantism (which you will get no problem with from me) But is not really an arguement as to the objective morality of the act. Protestants are already material heretics, being disobediant to the magisterium is kind of a given.[/color]


However, individual paramilitary actions against self-selected targets with no regard for collateral damage is wrong. This violates the simple conditions of of the Fifth Commandments (Thou shalt not kill) and of Romans 12:19 which says, "for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord." For a person to take this sort of action, as a Christian, is a sin against God because it denies belief in God's promises and places a person's desires above those of the Lord. We cannot presume to know how God will deal with those who defy Him. This sort of attack chooses our vengeance over the Lord's.
[color="#2E8B57"]I would disagree, this sort of attack is just an attack, it is absolutely no different than any military action. The innocent dead you are complaining about are nothing more than accidental "collateral damage on soft targets". Your objection goes to "right authority", which might be a good objection. However, in order to make it you will have to explain how authority can come from the people, from below and not from above, and then why, with authority coming from the people, individual people do not have "right authority" to make war.[/color]

The Crusades, which were just conflicts, is a different story. However, as I stated before, this does not mean that within a just conflict that there cannot be unjust and evil actions. This does not in any way change whether a person is Christian, but it does mean that their actions are outside the desires of God and places their immortal souls in danger.

[color="#2E8B57"]No disagreement at all.[/color]


This situation with McVeigh does in fact differ with a bomber pilot who, under orders, attacks a position within a city. Care is taken in precise strikes to eliminate or minimize collateral damage. McVeigh could make no such claim. To say he chose "legitimate military targets" would suggest he was a part of a currently active military unit under orders, which he was not.

[color="#2E8B57"]What does being under orders have to do with anything. The morality of an act has nothing to do with being under orders. "I was only following orders" is not an acceptable answer. Similarly, "He was not following orders" does not render something immoral. But since you brought it up, what make a military unit? [/color]

He attacked at a time of day when the building could presumably be full of innocent people, and with the knowledge that there was a day care center within the building.

[color="#2E8B57"]So what, his targets were only there at that time of day. The fact that a day care center was put in a building housing, what are essentially federal troops is the fault of the government not on McViegh. It is remenicent of the use of human shields by Hussien.[/color]


Argue whatever you please about his desire to take out select government targets...his actions remain reckless, evil, and outside God's specific commandments.

[color="#2E8B57"]That may be so, I am not saying that his actions were in fact just. I am not sure, I do not know the intent of McViegh. If he was simply acting out of vengence for Waco, I agree. If he was trying to set off a revolution, it is much more difficult to say.[/color][/quote]

[Marie-Therese]

Don John, I think we have a simple disagreement when it comes to our perspective. You seem to be satisfied with the position of militia-type activity, which I understand. The tree of liberty being watered with the blood of tyrants...I do accede that position. However, I also understand that I must be submissive in most circumstances to the actions of a lawful government. Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. In terms of vengeance for Waco, I understand their position, but in terms of our assent to lawful government, we should allow the authorities to make assessments and then let God deal with the situation.

I think you find me fundamentally in opposition to everything you have said, which is not true. I simply believe that to take up arms with the full knowledge that you will be killing innocent people as "collateral damage" is wrong, unless that action is done to protect oneself or one's family from imminent danger by an attacking force. Oklahoma City did not meet those criteria. Whether the government parties in the building at the time were culpable was in God's jurisdiction.

Pax.