Dear JOM,

My post was a direct answer to LEGO's nonsense. Further, radicalisation by religious figures is more than topical to what we are discussing, in fact I would have thought it pivotal.

And as an ardent nationalist of course you would be the first one here to get a little cranky about Hitler getting a bit of a touch up.

Tell you what though, if you are willing to retreat from this thread and take your soft, pernicious, nationalism somewhere else, I am more than happy to join you in relieving the rest of the posters of our pearls of wisdom.

Deal?

If not please put a plug in it.

Bill Calcutt and Marilyn Shepherd, there is no lack of clarity about the killers' political motives.
They specifically stated they wanted to "start a war in London tonight".
This was not "just another murder".

csteele,
You constantly misquote Jesus words,"I come not to bring peace, but to bring a sword" (Gospel of Matthew 10:34). Jesus lived in a society that was under Roman occupation and would kill by the sword anyone who would cause discention. He was not going to bow to god Caesar so that would not bring a peacful life it would bring Roman swords to those who would follow him. He rejected following Jewish sword carrying Zealots [Matthew 4]and the use of swords in his quote to Peter, "Those that live by the sword will die by the sword"[Matthew 26:52]. It is a pity you do not grasp the true character of Jesus but rather seek to denegrate him, which identifies your true deceitful character.

"This concept, observed by the Christian, Jewish and Muslim faiths, is taken to mean that God is saying that it permissible to kill with the sanction of legal authority, but not permissible to kill for personnel reasons."

According to Lego's theory, states can murder as much as they want, their head honchos just have to formalise it in law first.

Jay of Melbourne
Those claiming the right of the state to arbitrarily kill as many people as they want, need to answer to the immorality of their anti-human nonsense, Godwin's law or no.

Hi Mr Csteel. If you want to take a cheap shot at me, at least have the courtesy of directing your post at me. But I can understand your shyness. You had better have done your homework if you want to cross swords with me.

Since the Jewish man who claimed he was THE Jesus Christ did not carry a sword, never used a sword, never demanded a war, told his followers to "love thine enemies" and "turn the other cheek", and constantly proclaimed a pacifist message full of peace, love, and mung beans, it is reasonable to conclude that the words he spoke were metaphorical, and were simply suggesting that he had come to stir things up.

Your premise that "Christians" put six million Jews into gas chamber, so that proves that Christianity and Christians are violent, is an interesting premise.

It is based upon the assumption that almost all Nazis were practicing Christians. My own reading of history is something different. Armaments Minister Albert Speer recounted to allied interrogators after the war, that Hitler was contemptuous of Christianity BECAUSE of its inherent pacificism, and he praised Islam BECAUSE it was a warriors religion that was similar to the Old Norse pagan religion, that noted Nazis like Himmler and Goebbels were trying to resurrect in Germany. Furthermore, some of the inmates of the extermination camps were in fact Catholic Christian priests and Lutheran pastors who had openly and publically opposed Hitler and the Nazi party.

Of course, you could say that since most Germans were Christians and had supported Hitler, then Christianity was partially complicit in crimes against humanity. But since most of the Christians in the world at that time were fighting to destroy Nazism, then such a generalisation could be considered invalid. And you would have to apply that principle equally, and admit that since almost all of the terrorists in action today are Muslims, then the same standard must apply to Islam. Especially as Jihadis like Osama bin Laden are Islamic heroes and the most common name being bestowed on Muslim male babies today is 'Osama".

And if you wish to take a cheap shot at me also, Mr Jardine, could you also direct your post at me? Simply repeating what I said, making a sneey one liner reply, and looking around anxiously for support from others, is a poor substitute for a reasoned argument.

I think that you would do your cause a lot more good if you thought about what you were writing first, and thought out a considered rebuttal with possibly a bit of humour in it. That is better than simply acting outraged and writing the first bit of nonsense that comes into your head.

It is not my "theory" that the Commandment which states "Thou Shalt not Murder" means that this does justify the legal sanctioned killing of other human beings. Nor is it my "theory" that this does not sanction "Murder" (killing for personnel reasons) It is an interpretation which has been accepted for thousands of years by religious scholars of first the Hebrew faith, and later by Muslim and Christian religious scholars.

And for thousands of years, Mr Jardine, state sanctioned killing by authority has been the norm. The armed forces of every state for thousands of years have been armed with very lethal weapons, not with frying pans.

Every state in the world today has armed men backing up legal authority. The culture of these organisations are not only "Thou Shalt Kill", but "Great Woe Shall Betide Thee If Thou Dost Not"