Is

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
...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.

So babies are capable of being enemies of God, irredeemable and it is even possible to give them every chance to relent of their course of action? What 'course of action' would a 6 month old child be taking that offends God so much that it deserves death?

Originally posted by twhitehead
Do you believe that they should also be members of your denomination? Or are you merely happy with anyone claiming to be Christian?

Not my denomination only, no. Just Christian.

Originally posted by PinkFloyd
Not my denomination only, no. Just Christian.

In Africa we have leaders claiming to be Christian but their actions are far from admirable. I wonder why you would willingly elect someone like Dr. Chiluba former president of Zambia and extremely corrupt and responsible for thousands of deaths due to poverty and AIDS than say an atheist or Muslim leader who had the good of the country in mind.

-Removed-

You appear to be over simplifying the possibilities. For a start, I was under the impression that one bomb would have been more than sufficient to stop the war and that two were dropped as a threat to Russia.
There is also the possibility of dropping a bomb on an unpopulated or military target which could also have possibly stopped the war.
I for one do believe that an act that leads to more loss of life is morally inferior to an act that leads to less loss of life. I would also value guilty lives lower than innocent ones and possibly soldiers lives lower too.

-Removed-

You are an idiot, divegeester. But that is to be expected from an evolution denying, genocide supporting, monster-god-loving theist. So let's embark on a little exercise I like to call 'fun with syllogisms.' Do try to keep up.

premise 1: Bombing Hiroshima was a war crime
premise 2: war crimes are immoral
conclusion: Therefore the bombing of Hiroshima was immoral

You see how easy that was? Even a caveman could do it (but not a theist, apparently). Here's another:

premise 1: Smart people know war crimes are immoral
premise 2: Divegeester did not know war crimes are immoral
conclusion: Therefore Divegeester is an idiot.

Is that second syllogism free from any flaws? Does the conclusion follow from the premises? Are we having fun yet? No?

I have no interest in indulging your ham fisted foray into utilitarian ethics. While we may be forced to choose between the lesser of two evils in many situations, genocide is never the lesser evil. It is never a justifiable course of action to accomplish any strategy. Especially for a supposedly omnipotent god. No human set of ethics can justify it and no incomprehensible set of divine ethics can justify it. Genocide, human or divine, is to be condemned without fail. Those who will not do so and persist in crafting more and more outlandish scenarios to justify the genocidal behavior of their monster god are the moral equivalents of the worst Nazi war criminal.

OK, I will concede that analogy is not precise. After all, you didn't personally drown millions of people. You didn't personally slaughter the Midianites. You don't personally engage in genocide. But you support a god that did. And you think his victims had it coming. So in the spirit of gentlemanly compromise let's just say that you are the moral equivalent of a fervent card carrying Nazi. Perhaps one who lived next to a concentration camp while pretending to not know what went on inside. Fair enough?

Originally posted by rwingett
You are an idiot, divegeester. But that is to be expected from an evolution denying, genocide supporting, monster-god-loving theist. So let's embark on a little exercise I like to call 'fun with syllogisms.' Do try to keep up.

premise 1: Bombing Hiroshima was a war crime
premise 2: war crimes are immoral
conclusion: Therefore the bombing of Hiroshima w t to a concentration camp while pretending to not know what went on inside. Fair enough?

dear oh dear rwingwett dude, your firing your rockets into cyber space like nobody's business, i am surprised that no one has reported you to the moderator, for this type of behavior is ungentlemanly and brings the game of chess into ill repute, nor can it be levied against theists that we are idiots, for a great many theists were also great scientists, philanthropists, artists etc etc, so please if you may, by all means debate, but an attitude of condescension is neither becoming a gentleman nor productive, your fortunate that i don't live in Detroit for if i did i would come over to your house, slap you on the face with my glove and demand that you meet me at dawn for a duel for such ungentlemanly and scurrilous behavior - regards Robbie.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
dear oh dear rwingwett dude, your firing your rockets into cyber space like nobody's business, i am surprised that no one has reported you to the moderator, for this type of behavior is ungentlemanly and brings the game of chess into ill repute, nor can it be levied against theists that we are idiots, for a great many theists were also great scientis ...[text shortened]... ou meet me at dawn for a duel for such ungentlemanly and scurrilous behavior - regards Robbie.

As long as you don't try to drown me.

Originally posted by twhitehead
So babies are capable of being enemies of God, irredeemable and it is even possible to give them every chance to relent of their course of action? What 'course of action' would a 6 month old child be taking that offends God so much that it deserves death?

i have already shown, with reference that God does not arbitrarily destroy anyone, infact we can be sure that if one person was repentent then they would have been spared, please read the passage that i quoted! If there were innocents killed it was because of the action of their parents, God cannot be held responsible for this! If you live on the San Andreas fault line and an earthquake occurs, will you then blame someone else for where you built your house if all the occupants are killed inside? the scriptures indicate that the earth was filled with violence, were you there ? perhaps you know how to administer justice better than God, seeing that you have all the relevant facts! therefore your sensationalistic and pathetic attempt at emotional blackmail, will not work! the fault was there own and they bore community responsibility for safeguarding their own! the error was their own!

-Removed-

If you have a point to make then just make it. This isn't Jeopardy. You don't need to phrase it in the form of a question. I have no interest in jumping through your hoops. If you want to claim that the atomic bombings were not immoral, or whatever it is you're driving at, then just do it.

Originally posted by rwingett
You are an idiot, divegeester. But that is to be expected from an evolution denying, genocide supporting, monster-god-loving theist. So let's embark on a little exercise I like to call 'fun with syllogisms.' Do try to keep up.

premise 1: Bombing Hiroshima was a war crime
premise 2: war crimes are immoral
conclusion: Therefore the bombing of Hiroshima w ...[text shortened]... t to a concentration camp while pretending to not know what went on inside. Fair enough?

So what constitutes a war crime? What about the recent bombing within Pakistan by Obama which seems to have taken the lives of innocent villagers? Was that a war crime?

Originally posted by whodey
So what constitutes a war crime? What about the recent bombing within Pakistan by Obama which seems to have taken the lives of innocent villagers? Was that a war crime?

Isn't any conclusion difficult on this in the absence of hard facts?
Afghanistan and Pakistan have to do with repercussions of Al Quaeda's attacks in the US and is therefore defensive. Is it reprehensible? Probably. Is it a war crime on the level of the US invasion of Iraq? Not in my book. Is it the same as Israel overreacting in Gaza? Not in my book.

Originally posted by Badwater
Isn't any conclusion difficult on this in the absence of hard facts?
Afghanistan and Pakistan have to do with repercussions of Al Quaeda's attacks in the US and is therefore defensive. Is it reprehensible? Probably. Is it a war crime on the level of the US invasion of Iraq? Not in my book. Is it the same as Israel overreacting in Gaza? Not in my book.

Just what kind of books do you look at? What makes one attack differnet from another? Is it the ideology behind such attacks? Is it the ideology of those doing the attacking? Is it the number of "innocent" people harmed? Is it a body count?

Originally posted by whodey
So what constitutes a war crime? What about the recent bombing within Pakistan by Obama which seems to have taken the lives of innocent villagers? Was that a war crime?

A war crime would be when you bomb a target with the intention of inflicting a maximum number of civilian casualties. This is a terror tactic meant to cow a hostile populace into submission. If you bomb a specific target with the intention of inflicting the minimum number of civilian casualties, then it would not be a war crime. Not unless you consider war itself to be a war crime.