Originally posted by rwingettas long as you consider hiroshima and the bombing of berlin genocide as well. if not, then there are good murders and bad murders. and it depends on the winning side to label the murders good or bad.
Yes, I have studied the bible critically. That is why I ask critical questions about it. That is why I seek explanations for the many contradictions within it instead of merely glossing over them with the eternally blind eye of "faith."
But from your explanation, it is clear that you have no moral code to speak of. I understand god's metho ...[text shortened]... t moral code where murder and genocide are always condemned, regardless of the perpetrator.
as a side note, it might be useful to clarify my stance. for me, murder is the failure of solving a problem through decent, peaceful methods. it is the surrender of humanity, the capitulation to anger, greed, violence. it is condemnable.
Originally posted by ZahlanziOne could quibble as to whether the bombing of Hiroshima constitutes genocide or merely mass murder. There is a difference. Either way, the indiscriminate bombing of civilian targets should be condemned. If one can condemn the bombing of Guernica, Rotterdam and London, then one should certainly be called on to condemn the bombing of Hiroshima. One should also be willing to condemn the slaughter of non-combatants during the destruction of Jericho.
as long as you consider hiroshima and the bombing of berlin genocide as well. if not, then there are good murders and bad murders. and it depends on the winning side to label the murders good or bad.
as a side note, it might be useful to clarify my stance. for me, murder is the failure of solving a problem through decent, peaceful methods. it is the surrender of humanity, the capitulation to anger, greed, violence. it is condemnable.
-Removed-Pointing out how monstrous the God that was created by the semi-savages who wrote the OT is in no way presupposes that such a thing actually exists. In fact, it is a rhetorical device to show just how unlikely its existence is. A cruel, murdering anthropomorphic God is just a reflection of the people who invented it. Enlightened people of thousands of years later should have no use for such an illogical, terrible fairy tale monster.
3 edits
Originally posted by no1marauderif as you have stated a peoples actions are traceable and have a direct correlation to the God that they worship, how do you account for the beautiful self sacrificing acts of those Christians, acting on principles written down in the self same book, who were maliciously subjected to the horrors of the Nazi concentration camps because they would not compromise to lesser principles and who worship the very same God?
Pointing out how monstrous the God that was created by the semi-savages who wrote the OT is in no way presupposes that such a thing actually exists. In fact, it is a rhetorical device to show just how unlikely its existence is. A cruel, murdering anthropomorphic God is just a reflection of the people who invented it. Enlightened people of thousands of years later should have no use for such an illogical, terrible fairy tale monster.
2 edits
Originally posted by robbie carrobieYou seem to ignore that most of the Nazis doing the atrocities were Christians. The vast majority of Christians reject the JW's ideas regarding pacifism and loyalty oaths, flag salutes, etc. etc. And as I already showed, the Nazis banned all books which criticized the Christian faith.
if as you have stated a peoples actions are traceable and have a direct correlation to the God that they worship, how do you account for the beautiful self sacrificing acts of those Christians, acting on principles written down in the self same book, who were maliciously subjected to the horrors of the Nazi concentration camps because they would not compromise to lesser principles and who worship the very same God?
EDIT: In case you forgot:
Interestingly enough, the Nazis banned "c) All writings that ridicule, belittle or besmirch the Christian religion and its institution, faith in God, or other things that are holy to the healthy sentiments of the Volk.
http://www.library.arizona.edu/exhibits/burnedbooks/documents.htm#herrmann
BTW, I never made the claim that "peoples actions are traceable and have a direct correlation to the God that they worship,".
Originally posted by buckkyYes, it's true. The day will come when we will all stand before the one that made us and give an account of our lives.
Can a non beliver still believe in an after life of some sorts ? Just the fact that we are here in the flesh talking about such issues is pretty wild if the whole thing is one big accident or fluke, so why could we not end up on the other side with awarness after death. I'm sure it could all be explained away as just another God not involved fluke. I'm not ta ...[text shortened]... evers ending up in Hell. Just identity after death with awarness of being alive in some sense.
Or, you can ascribe to the idea that our lives are meaningless and we will all cease to exist forevermore.
Or you can choose to believe any number of other options.
It seems to me that it has to be one or the other.
3 edits
Originally posted by no1maraudernow perhaps my dear sir, you will answer the question, how do you account for it? the same book, the same God?
You seem to ignore that most of the Nazis doing the atrocities were Christians. The vast majority of Christians reject the JW's ideas regarding pacifism and loyalty oaths, flag salutes, etc. etc. And as I already showed, the Nazis banned all books which criticized the Christian faith.
EDIT: In case you forgot:
Interestingly enough, the Nazis banned "peoples actions are traceable and have a direct correlation to the God that they worship,".
please note i do not consider such as the Nazis to be Christians, for they do not follow the teachings of Christ.
i must beg your forgiveness but it seemed to me that you did state that a peoples, 'invention', of their god, which amounts to the same reality, perceived, imagined or otherwise, is a reflection of the people itself and generally made manifest in action, therefore unless i have misunderstood your intent, which is quite probable, the converse is also true, a cruel and malicious God would be echoed in cruel and malicious actions of its adherents, is it not so? for example , the god of the Aztecs. called for human hearts, thus we understand that they perpetrated quite cruel and horrific acts, is it not the case?
Originally posted by robbie carrobieOf course. a "No True Scotsman" argument was expected. However, as already been pointed out, "Christian" principles, at least as elucidated in the OT, do not preclude mass murder and atrocities. German Christians who were Nazis were perfectly mainstream in their theology; JW's are not. How do I account for differences in theology in a group who base their ideas on a collection of writings made by dozens of different authors and spaced over a thousand years? Easily; some of the writings relied on express certain ideas, others express other ideas. Differences in Biblical interpretation are utterly typical among Christian sects.
now perhaps my dear sir, you will answer the question, how do you account for it? the same book, the same God?
please note i do not consider such as the Nazis to be Christians, for they do not follow the teachings of Christ.
i must beg your forgiveness but it seemed to me that you did state that a peoples, 'invention', of their god, which amou ...[text shortened]... s, thus we understand that they perpetrated quite cruel and horrific acts, is it not the case?
All peoples in all time periods have committed cruel and horrific acts. It was (and is) utterly commonplace for people doing such acts to suppose that God(s) justify such action.
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderthank you for a refreshingly candid answer. i myself have yet to come to terms with this paradox, although i do think that there are grounds for the basis that the christian principles as espoused by Christ were meant to supersede those given previously to the ancient Hebrews and in many ways instances are inherently contraire, thus there is provision for vengeance, Christ states that forgiveness should take place, there was provision for warfare, Christ states that this is unacceptable etc etc. infact the more i think about it, the more stark the contrast, mmmmm, anyhow, i really do think that you have a case against those professing to be Christian but who do not adhere to his teachings, thus i think it was Mohandas Gandhi who stated that he loved Christ but despised Christians for they do not live as Christ did.
Of course. a "No True Scotsman" argument was expected. However, as already been pointed out, "Christian" principles, at least as elucidated in the OT, do not preclude mass murder and atrocities. German Christians who were Nazis were perfectly mainstream in their theology; JW's are not. How do I account for differences in theology in a group who base the ...[text shortened]... utterly commonplace for people doing such acts to suppose that God(s) justify such action.
1 edit
-Removed-So christians carried out the WW2 war crimes now did they? Christians by what definition?
Well, different Christian seem to have different definitions on that score. (There was a thread on that question not too far back.) Which definition should a non-Christian accept?
But, I think this illustrates the “No True Scotsman” fallacy that No.1 mentioned.
“No Scotsman would drink Irish whiskey.”
“Hey, my friend MacDougal is a Scotsman, and he drinks Irish whiskey.”
“Well, no true Scotsman…”
______________________________________________
Now, in the face of acts of genocide putatively commanded by God, you have several choices:
(1) That an otherwise immoral act becomes moral simply by divine fiat;
(2) That God has unknown (unknowable?) moral reasons that would lead you to conclude (if you had the relevant information) that an otherwise immoral act is, in this case, moral;
(3) That God is not moral; or
(4) The claims by the perpetrators of genocide to have been divinely so commanded are false.
Number (4) also holds in the case that there is no God.
Number (4) cannot hold under any doctrine of inerrancy of scripture.
I personally think it is dangerous for anyone to attempt to abrogate (intentionally or unintentionally) their own moral responsibility for deciding such questions on the basis, for example, of (1) or (2) above. I don’t think that we are let off the hook by the mere fact of uncertainty. Therefore, I would have to conclude that any God who actually commanded such things is (3) immoral.
There is another view, however: that any moral person should refuse to carry out an act that they saw as immoral—even if (seemingly, anyway) commanded by God! One rabbi I knew said flatly that Abraham’s agreement to sacrifice (murder) Isaac was just such a moral failure. [One key to reading that story, however, might be that there are two different terms used for the different divine voices that are “heard”.]
This last view, combined with (4), would be mine generally (with due regard to the "circumstances" presented in any given story).
-Removed-Your head in the sand approach is typical of theists presented with unpleasant facts.
Germany in the 1930's-1940's was an overwhelming Christian country (it is, of course, the birthplace of the Reformation). The atrocities in WWII were committed by self-described Christians. You will, of course, seek refuge in the "No True Scotsman" argument. But the idea that Christians didn't commit the Nazi atrocities is the one that exists in a dream world. And it is hardly bigotry to state an obvious historical fact.