I said that a SHEPHERD both shears his sheep and eats some of them. The point is that the Shepherd’s actions are of a different, higher, order than those of a sheep.
That was followed by a question about Winston Churchill. What is your answer to the question?
Doesn’t it strike you as odd that the comparison so often used of Christ and God as our shepherd is here used in theological debate as to whether the “shepherd” kills and eats his flock?
Does the thought occur that if we end up here, a wrong turn has been made somewhere?
No, you said:
“I don’t consider it a condemnation because the Shepherd shears the sheep and even eats some of them.”
With the capitalization of Shepherd in a post in a Catholic / Christian thread that has reached 6500 posts, one would assume the reference was to the Good Shepherd. If one is not referencing Jesus Christ, the analogy gets a tad misty. Could you explain about eating versus shearing a little further please?
The Churchill example is an interesting one. If England were a unilateral invader of a peaceful Germany, then not telling the villagers is definitely an immoral and unjust act. Defending one’s country against the V2 rocket attacks and the Lufwaffe air raids is moral and just.
I’m going to split it down the middle. I believe that he was moral and just in not telling villagers that England was going to bomb them after breaking the code. The weeklong firebombing of Dresden was immoral and unjust and an unconscionable act.