Posts: 20,615
Threads: 558
Likes Received: 0 in 0 posts
Likes Given: 0
Joined: Oct 2008
Snatch I mean getting grabbed and then ubget murdered. They grabbed qaaffi suck dragged bin off ro kill him. His regeinw asko did hy to opponents
it's fitting
sip
nontears here reall. I only hold holidays in my heart dor toppled tyrants
I know
sip
I'm a humbug al well
•
Posts: 18,026
Threads: 193
Likes Received: 1 in 1 posts
Likes Given: 0
Joined: Aug 2007
(10-22-2011, 08:33 PM)devotedknuckles Wrote: Thus my point
he toppled his king. He was toppled by a rebellion
I don't bubit was jut fine for him to topple his king but somehow a rebellion which toppled him is bad
You're not getting it.
1)
In principle, rebellions against legitimate authority are immoral. Of course, there are exceptions to this rule but the starting point is precisely that: authority is sacred. That much is clear from divine revelation.
2) I'm not saying that Khaddafi was right and the rebels are wrong. What I objected to was the treatment he received, being dragged through the streets and killed like a petty criminal. It reflects a contempt for order and authority that is alarming to any Christian ears.
•
Posts: 20,615
Threads: 558
Likes Received: 0 in 0 posts
Likes Given: 0
Joined: Oct 2008
oh i get it vetus. i just disagree. i think he got what was commin and what he deserved
nuff said really. i see your points but i don't buy them. not the first tyrant to fall
sip
wont be the last
and truly i doubt any one here will convince me otherwise
•
Posts: 18,026
Threads: 193
Likes Received: 1 in 1 posts
Likes Given: 0
Joined: Aug 2007
You disagree that authority is sacred and that in principle rebellions against it are immoral?
Or you just disagree with me that the treatment Khaddafi got was deserved?
•