Viewing Thread:
"Forest"

Forest Fan wrote:

>
> Obviously, and they shouldn't have shot him. It wasn't a split second
> decision from what I gather, they had no reason to shoot him and the
> police were in the wrong in my opinion. But I agree with the general
> principle of disabling terrorists by shooting to kill.

So...they followed him from a block of flats, chased him into a tube station, ran after him, and made (to the best of my knowledge) no initial attempt to stop him prior to this chase...all in a split second? NB. You'd said it WASN'T a split second; apologies for that.

And I note you make no attempt to address my accusation that you're taking sickening pleasure in the death of someone whom you believed to be a terrorist.

> One of the main Christian principles (as Aquinas puts it) is to
> preserve life and protect the innocent. Of course it is better to
> terminate one life which seeks to destroy many others, than let
> innocents die.

And this relates to the death of an innocent man...how exactly?

Leaving aside my amusement at seeing you go from "Catholicism is the work of the devil" to quoting a Catholic saint, did Aquinas say that you should take pleasure in preserving life and protecting the innocent by means of killing? St Thomas referred to the Capital Sentence when he talked of protecting the innocent, which implies a due process. Where is the due process in chasing a man down and shooting him in the head?

Have you looked at the Evangelium Vitae, which states quite clearly that;

The direct and voluntary killing of an innocent human being is always gravely immoral"

Or maybe The Catechism which, quoting the instruction "Donum vitae," states,

"God alone is the Lord of life from its beginning until its end: no one can under any circumstance claim for himself the right directly to destroy an innocent human being"

Or, again, can I ask you to reconsider that whole wacky "Thou shalt not kill" principle that you seem to have forgotten?



> Well that's the truth, isn't it?

Yes, it is. And, as I said, I do so because you never, EVER think about what you're saying. You spout a learned-by-rote slogan that you don't even understand. And I take great enjoyment making you think, seeing as you clearly dislike doing so. Your petulant running away once your "jewish christianity" lying was dissected gave that away.

Now then; that's enough for this thread. If you want to continue this, here's the new thread for it.

Light wrote:
> I'll just repeat that; Forest Fan, an evangelical Christian, is more
> Jewish than the entire Jewish religion.
----

And he's more orthodox than Rabbis.

That's really quite funny.

Pandaemonium wrote:

> But don't you describe yourself as a Jewish Christian? What you're
> just written there is hugely at odds.

Heh. Didn't you see one of his earlier posts in this thread? He admitted that Jews won't consider him Jewish.

Then he said that didn't matter, because he's more Jewish than the Jews.

I'll just repeat that; Forest Fan, an evangelical Christian, is more Jewish than the entire Jewish religion.

Give me a shout when you've stopped laughing at that statement.

Forest Fan wrote:
> Actually, I think most Jews (i.e. non Christians) are still looking
> for a Messiah to come to earth to bring them peace...

But don't you describe yourself as a Jewish Christian? What you're just written there is hugely at odds.

Forest Fan wrote:
> loki wrote:
> Indeed I'd imagine that to the Jewish community, the idea that God
> could be made flesh in the form of his son (err... and himself of
> course) would be utterly blasphemous.
>
> Actually, I think most Jews (i.e. non Christians) are still looking
> for a Messiah to come to earth to bring them peace...

What's that got to do with it? They may be awaiting a messiah but that doesn't mean they think that messiah will literally be God in another form.

I think he was trying to say that it was better for the terrorist to be killed than be given the chance to kill people by detonating the bomb.
Although I still don't think that shooting to kill is necessary when you're on top of a guy (although I guess they made the panicked decision to shoot before they had him pinned).

English_Bloke wrote:
> And the collateral damage is just soul fodder for the devil, right?

Ahahahahaha.

English_Bloke wrote:
> Like this, I think.
> This reminds me of a long time ago, when a supposedly
> "innocent" man was killed for his radical thinking. To save
> many others from sin, apparently. So, in short, Forest's point is that
> radical Christians like himself like it when the odd innocent person
> dies. It's nostalgic for them.

What's the phrase? "one mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter"

Forest Fan wrote:
> No that's not what I'm saying, personally I think the police were in
> the wrong and I have already stated that. All I'm saying is if there
> was a terrorist, and not just some Brazilian jumping a ticket barrier
> - then shoot to kill to protect seems like the right idea.

And the collateral damage is just soul fodder for the devil, right?

Everyone ripping up Forest Fan's beliefs in the Life forum. Ahh, reminds me of the good old days.