1 edit
Originally posted by FabianFnasHow so? With "Islamophobia" the presumption is that all Muslims agree with the radicals who believe that God tells them to kill the infidel. The presumption with Bush is the same.
The idea that people thinking Bush made wars of religious reasons should be called Christianophobic makes no sense to me. Many christian people has that idea too, as far as I know.[/b]
-Removed-Wikipedia, eh? OK, let's see what we find, shall we? Hmmm, well, isn't this interesting? If we look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocides_in_history, we see the following paragraph:
The Old Testament not only describes the genocides of Amalekites and Midianites but justifies them through references to the word of God. Jones quotes Jerusalem-based Holocaust Studies Professor Yehuda Bauer: "As a Jew, I must live with the fact that the civilization I inherited ... encompasses the call for genocide in its canon."
We also see that there is NO mention of Nagasaki and Hiroshima. I was willing to overlook the Amalekites and the Midianites and just charge god with genocide for the great flood. But now it looks like the charges against him will grow. I suggest you go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide_definitions and do a little research.
How's that Wikipedia working out for you now?
Originally posted by whodeyDo you say tha Bush is islamophobic?
How so? With "Islamophobia" the presumption is that all Muslims agree with the radicals who believe that God tells them to kill the infidel. The presumption with Bush is the same.
Or do you say that Obama is christianophobic?
Or what is your point?
If you read what I've written from the start, I don't have any opinion about Bush at all in this matter...
-Removed-If it seems like I'm evading your point, it's because I do not see what your point is. Are you asking me whether I think war is morally justifiable? Or whether using atomic bombs is morally justifiable? Or whether Curtis LeMay and "Bomber" Harris should have been tried for war crimes too? Or is your point simply to contradict everything I say?
If, on the other hand, you're trying to say that if I support the dropping of the atomic bombs then I support genocide too, you're simply wrong. As I have amply demonstrated, genocide is different from killing a lot of people in an air raid. I have already stated my opinion that the bombing of civilian targets should be classified as a war crime. LeMay himself remarked that if the Japanese had won the war then he probably would have been tried for war crimes. Chuck Yeager wrote in his autobiography that some of the Allied bombing missions effectively amounted to war crimes. If you want to say that Truman committed a war crime by dropping the atomic bombs and that it was a "victor's justice" at Nuremberg, then perhaps you'd be right.
-Removed-The difference, as should be obvious, is that Harry Truman was neither omnipotent nor omniscient. Your god supposedly is. Given that Truman could not know if or when the Japanese would surrender, perhaps the atomic bombs were the best he could do in the situation. Your postulated god is not similarly constrained. Being omnipotent, he could have accomplished his objective in any number of ways that did not involve genocide. Being omniscient, he would know, in advance, the outcome of every possible scenario and which ones would have accomplished his objective without necessitating genocide. If he is all loving, he necessarily would have chosen a course of action which did not involve genocide.
Your god didn't need to drown anyone, but he did anyway. We can only conclude that he set things up the way he did because he wanted to drown all those people. Your god, if he exists, is a genocidal monster. That is the simple, inescapable fact of the matter.
Originally posted by rwingettwrong it has been proven with reference that God does not desire any to be destroyed. 2 Peter chapter 3:9, those who have been the subject of divine punishment were clearly irredeemable, made themselves enemies of God and were given every chance to relent of their course of action.
The difference, as should be obvious, is that Harry Truman was neither omnipotent nor omniscient. Your god supposedly is. Given that Truman could not know if or when the Japanese would surrender, perhaps the atomic bombs were the best he could do in the situation. Your postulated god is not similarly constrained. Being omnipotent, he could have accomplished ...[text shortened]... god, if he exists, is a genocidal monster. That is the simple, inescapable fact of the matter.
again consider an insight into his personality
And Jehovah the God of their forefathers kept sending against them by means of his messengers, sending again and again, because he felt compassion for his people and for his dwelling. But they were continually making jest at the messengers of the true God and despising his words and mocking at his prophets, until the rage of Jehovah came up against his people, until there was no healing. 2 Chronicles 3:15,16
what do we learn other than he is a God of forbearance and patience, yet he cannot tolerate , injustice, violence and despoiling indefinitely.
-Removed-Defer? How many times do I have to say it? For the third time, bombing civilian targets should be considered a war crime. Harry Truman, Curtis LeMay and Bomber Harris are all in the same boat with Hermann Goering on that particular count. Is that clear enough for you, or should I put it in ALL CAPS?
If your god operates by a moral code that is unclear to you, then you have no basis for claiming that he is a moral god. At best his moral status would be unknowable. Either way you are guilty of lapsing into a 'moral relativism' of an unprecedented scale.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI recognize that form of 'desire'.
wrong it has been proven with reference that God does not desire any to be destroyed. 2 Peter chapter 3:9, those who have been the subject of divine punishment were clearly irredeemable, made themselves enemies of God and were given every chance to relent of their course of action.
'I desire not to go to work today.' [but of course I went]
'I desire to be thin/fit' [but eat tons of junk food]
(These are hypothetical, mind you...)