The bible makes me sick.
- Thread starter Eos of the Eons
- Start date
They are exempted because we had no choice.Radrook said:
It was not within America's power to destroy Dresden militarily and economically without killing its children.
Is your argument that God has no more power than the American military in WWII?
Because, you know, we've gotten better. Has God? Does he have GPS bombs now? Or are we gonna kick his ass like we kicked Iraq's 30-year old Soviet technology ass?
Yahzi said:
This has NOTHING to do with Iraq.
I do not take sides in politics.
So please try to keep the discussion politically neutral.
The issue is the inconsistency you show in your moral sensitivities.
Anyway, in reference to Dresden,
it wasn't just the USA involved.
It was England as well.
They took turns.
One in the daytime and one at night.
Even when their was nothing left to bomb they bombed the rubble. The Russian army was within earshot and heard the whole demonstration from a distance.
If you were familiar with the background of Dresden and the reason why it was bombed you would not have made that statement that it was necessary. This also applies to Nagasaki and Hiroshima but let us restrict it to Dresden temporarily.
The reason Dresden was bombed was political.
As the Communist Russians advanced they began to pose a threat to the democracies.
A show of deterrent force was needed in order to dissuade the Russians and convince them that any imperial ambitions in Western Europe would be far too costly to attempt. So Dresden was chosen not because it was an important military target. It was chosen merely on the basis of being within earshot of the Russian armies. In short, the fire bombing of civilians was done to impress the Russians.
After the war this became widely known and widely criticized.
But of course, as you proudly say, my country right or wrong but my country as they say. Even if it means burning children alive.
BTW
My argument is that if you are so horrified with the death of caanaitr children why aren't you equally condemnatory and horrified at the burning alive of babies and children when it has to do with your chosen political agendas?
Excerpt:
The prelude to the bombing of Dresden was sounded by the Russian communique of January 12, 1945, which announced that the Red Army had resumed its offensive all along the front, and was advancing into Prussia and Silesia. This news could hardly have been more embarrassing, either to General Dwight D. Eisenhower whose armies were still recovering from the humiliating effects of General Karl von Rundstedt's Christmas offensive in the Ardennes, or to President Franklin D. Roosevelt and Prime Minister Churchill who were now preparing for the Yalta Conference due to start on February 4. Since the post war settlement was bound to be discussed with Josef Stalin in terms not of principle but of pure politics, Sir Winston felt that the impression created by the Red Army's occupation of Eastern Europe and advance deep into Germany must somehow be countered. But how? The obvious answer was by a demonstration right up against the Red Army of Western air power. What was required, he decided, was a thunderclap of Anglo-American aerial annihilation so frightful in the destruction it wreaked that even Stalin would be impressed.
FreeRepublic.com "A Conservative News Forum"
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/fr/628617/posts
Excerpt:
On Shrove Tuesday, February 13, 1945, a flood of refugees fleeing the Red Army 60 miles away had swollen the city's population to well over a million. Each new refugee brought fearful accounts of Soviet atrocities. Little did those refugees retreating from the Red terror imagine that they were about to die in a horror worse than anything Stalin could devise.
Normally, a carnival atmosphere prevailed in Dresden on Shrove Tuesday. In 1945, however, the outlook was rather dismal. Houses everywhere overflowed with refugees, and thousands were forced to camp out in the streets shivering in the bitter cold.
However, the people felt relatively safe; and although the mood was grim, the circus played to a full house that night as thousands came to forget for a moment the horrors of war. Bands of little girls paraded about in carnival dress in an effort to bolster warning spirits. Half-sad smiles greeted the laughing girls, but spirits were lifted.
No one realized that in less than 24 hours those same innocent children would die screaming in Churchill's firestorms. But, of course, no one could know that then. The Russians, to be sure, were savages, but at least the Americans and British were "honorable."
The WWII Dresden Holocaust -
http://www.rense.com/general19/flame.htm
crocodile deathroll
Muse
- Joined
- Jun 5, 2002
- Messages
- 620
I think the problem here is paper poisoning. Your ate your Bible raw that is not recommended.
I suggest you soak your Bible ever night and then put it through a blender the next day. Mix it then with a tablespoon of salt, beef stock and mixed herbs. Then place in a large pot of water that was brought to the boil and you have a nice recipe for Bible soup Yum! that is guaranteed not to make you sick. Especially nice for Bibles whose paper was made from hemp fiber.
... and that is another thought. You could smoke your Bible
I suggest you soak your Bible ever night and then put it through a blender the next day. Mix it then with a tablespoon of salt, beef stock and mixed herbs. Then place in a large pot of water that was brought to the boil and you have a nice recipe for Bible soup Yum! that is guaranteed not to make you sick. Especially nice for Bibles whose paper was made from hemp fiber.
... and that is another thought. You could smoke your Bible
Radrook, are you seriously suggesting that the perpetrators of Dresden, Nagasaki etc would not avoided roasting babies if they could?
I don't know the truth of that one, and neither do you. I strongly suspect it was not something they viewed desirable, merely acceptable or unavoidable.
That is one hell of a long way from Isaiah 13 or 1 Samuel 15 where the slaughter of infants is not only approved, it is commanded and venerated.
In any case a Tu quoque fallacy hardly supports your case, it merely begs the question. It would be difficult use the actions of man, either now or historically, to suggest we are incapable of immorality. The question at hand is whether bible has anything on offer in this respect.
I don't care too much that that kind of action was acceptable in israel all the way back then, it is still perfectly acceptable in parts of our world today. If the bible is meant to be a moral guide it should have stood for better values regardless of the flaws in the world it was initially written in.
I don't know the truth of that one, and neither do you. I strongly suspect it was not something they viewed desirable, merely acceptable or unavoidable.
That is one hell of a long way from Isaiah 13 or 1 Samuel 15 where the slaughter of infants is not only approved, it is commanded and venerated.
In any case a Tu quoque fallacy hardly supports your case, it merely begs the question. It would be difficult use the actions of man, either now or historically, to suggest we are incapable of immorality. The question at hand is whether bible has anything on offer in this respect.
I don't care too much that that kind of action was acceptable in israel all the way back then, it is still perfectly acceptable in parts of our world today. If the bible is meant to be a moral guide it should have stood for better values regardless of the flaws in the world it was initially written in.
Benguin said:
I am not suggesting anything.
It is common knowledge that Japan was trying to surrender via the Russian embassy prior to the Hiroshima attack.
It is also common knowledge that Dresden was not a military arms production center and was of little direct military value.
If you are against this common knowledge then I suggest you contact the sources I give and take the issue up with them. Also with the hundreds of other sources which corroborate what they say.
You don't know but choose to strongly suspect?
Wellll, OK?
What is my case?
What is the question?
The case and the question from my standpoint is your double standards. Claiming to feel for the babies of Caanan but then asserting not to care that much about the babies of Dresden is sheer hypocrisy.
Obviously you prefer strawman to what my case really is.
I am beginning to strongly suspect that you have never read the whole Bible but have merely pecked here and there and everywhere you find enjoyable to peck in order to criticize. Otherwise you would never make the statement that the Bible provides no valuable moral guidance.
The Bible is NOT telling you to kill children.
If you derive that conclusion it is because you are either totally unfamiliar wih the most of the Bible and only understand it in a fragmented way based on the pecking modus operandi you choose to use--or maybe because you prefer to understand it that way because it suits your purposes.
If read within context, the Bible is simply telling you that God saw fit to empty that geographical; location so that his chosen people could occupy it in reasonable peace. Neither is the Bible telling you tat removal of those people was eternal destruction. They will be brought to life in the resurrection. So it was a temporary removal from earth.
Z
Variable Constant
Actually, the Bible doesn't promise the victims of these attacks would be brought back later... in fact, it seems pretty clear through much of the OT that if you weren't a Jew, you were an animal unfit for God's love.
You DO realize, do you not, Radrook, that Moses' tablet containing the commandment, "Thou Shall Not Kill" specifically referred to a Jewish man killing another Jewish man? The specific terminology involved excluded Jewish women and children and anyone not of Israel. So, a more accurate translation would be, "Thou Shalt Not Kill Thy Male Countrymen".
Scary, huh?
You DO realize, do you not, Radrook, that Moses' tablet containing the commandment, "Thou Shall Not Kill" specifically referred to a Jewish man killing another Jewish man? The specific terminology involved excluded Jewish women and children and anyone not of Israel. So, a more accurate translation would be, "Thou Shalt Not Kill Thy Male Countrymen".
Scary, huh?
Skeptical Greg
Agave Wine Connoisseur
Radrook said:
Ipecac
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Feb 8, 2002
- Messages
- 1,846
Radrook said:
I have to agree with Godwin. This is hysterical.
Couldn't god just have commanded his chosen people to get along with those who already lived there? Couldn't god just have solved the problem without wholesale death?
The god in which you believe is immoral and weak.
Ipecac said:
Agreed, and it would have been nice if he intervened to stop the likes of Hiroshima, Dresden (and srbrenica, rwanda and a million other horrid occurences). Or at least signalled he wasn't too impressed.
It's either proof he's not about, or that he doesn't care. And that's being charitable!
Z
Variable Constant
More like proof that He's an insensitive prick with a serious mean streak.
Better off without the JCM God.
Better off without the JCM God.
Eos of the Eons
Mad Scientist
- Joined
- Jul 23, 2003
- Messages
- 13,749
Noah and his floating zoo was spared the mass killing from the flood. Everything else suffered intentional wipeout.
How rude.
How rude.
Eos of the Eons said:
Perhaps you consider indiscriminate carpet fire bombing as at Dresden a much more polite alternative.
Genesis 18
Then Abraham approached him and said: "Will you sweep away the righteous with the wicked? 24 What if there are fifty righteous people in the city? Will you really sweep it away and not spare [6] the place for the sake of the fifty righteous people in it? 25 Far be it from you to do such a thing-to kill the righteous with the wicked, treating the righteous and the wicked alike. Far be it from you! Will not the Judge [7] of all the earth do right?"
26 The LORD said, "If I find fifty righteous people in the city of Sodom, I will spare the whole place for their sake."....
32 Then he said, "May the Lord not be angry, but let me speak just once more. What if only ten can be found there?"
He answered, "For the sake of ten, I will not destroy it."
(NIV)
Z
Variable Constant
No, but God is generally held to higher standards than Man.
War is wrong - mass killing is wrong - but it's OK if God does it.
Boyoboyoboy...
War is wrong - mass killing is wrong - but it's OK if God does it.
Boyoboyoboy...
Eos of the Eons
Mad Scientist
- Joined
- Jul 23, 2003
- Messages
- 13,749
What's dresden?
Any god that participates in intentional mass killing is no better than a sicko dictator, and is a sicko dictator themselves, no matter how the mass killing is undertaken. Saying humans do mass killing is no excuse for a god to.
This argument is so ridiculous since gods don't exist anyway.
Any god that participates in intentional mass killing is no better than a sicko dictator, and is a sicko dictator themselves, no matter how the mass killing is undertaken. Saying humans do mass killing is no excuse for a god to.
This argument is so ridiculous since gods don't exist anyway.