Could A Good God Permit So Much Suffering?

gmark77 said:
Nor did I say EVERY religion. I said almost every one. Sacrifice is the core of Christianity, certainly.



You could have taken some time to craft an actual critique of my point and show me the errors but instead you just come on here to lob shit. I didn't realize they put computer terminals into the ape house.
Click to expand...
no.

empathy is the core of christianity.

because of the golden rule.

it's golden for a reason.

gold means number one.
 
gmark77 said:
Was dropping the atomic bomb on Hiroshima “moral”?
Click to expand...
I literally wrote that the intent and goals of a war can be morally justifiable.

I sure hope you believe the decision to defeat the Third Reich and Imperial Japan was morally justified.

I'm ambiguous about certain decisions made during WW2. Given the information available at the time, I can understand how it was believed an atomic attack on Japan would ultimately save lives.

In summary, I just don't dislike and loathe the Hebrew Bible the way you do
 
Cypress said:
I literally wrote that the intent and goals of a war can be morally justifiable.

I sure hope you believe the decision to defeat the Third Reich and Imperial Japan was morally justified.

I'm ambiguous about certain decisions made during WW2. Given the information available at the time, I can understand how it was believed an atomic attack on Japan would ultimately save lives.

In summary, I just don't dislike and loathe the Hebrew Bible the way you do
Click to expand...
dropping a nuke was tactical.

you just love killing, Nazi piece of crap.
 
gmark77 said:
Nor did I say EVERY religion. I said almost every one. Sacrifice is the core of Christianity, certainly.



You could have taken some time to craft an actual critique of my point and show me the errors but instead you just come on here to lob shit. I didn't realize they put computer terminals into the ape house.
Click to expand...
no.

sacrifice is NOT the core of christianity.

Jesus was the sacrifice to END ALL SACRIFICES.

judaism is a bloody murder race cult, as current events prove.
 
gmark77 said:
Interesting. That seemed easy enough. So the countless innocent who were carbonized deserved it? There was no possible alternative?

(Mind you I actually agree that what Truman did was a calculated action to achieve a good end but there WERE more “moral” options available to him)
Click to expand...
she said it was not moral.

how does that answer result in you asking "so they deserved it"?

dumb as fuck.

you jumped the rails right here.
 
gmark77 said:
That sounds like an opinion. I am not held by the same rules as those who believe in the supernatural. And since no one has EVER proven God's existence or the existence of "universal moral law", then it is nothing more than an "opinion".



Do you have some studies showing that?



But the sacrifice of full-grown adults is morally OK? Because it forms the core of the dominant religion in the West. Which you feel is not simply an "opinion" but carries some necessary truth.
Click to expand...
do you believe in a society where hard workers matters that violence and robbery?
 
Sammy Jankis said:
why did we nuke Japan and not Germany for wwII?
Click to expand...
Easy. Germany surrendered before we had any operational nuclear weapons in our arsenal.

Germany was not expected to fight fanatically to the last man, and their civilian population was not expected to offer any measurable resistance.

A seaborne invasion of the Japanese home islands was expected to be the most logistically difficult and riskiest military operation in American history, making D-day look like a walk in the park.
 
Cypress said:
Easy. Germany surrendered before we had any operational nuclear weapons in our arsenal.

Germany was not expected to fight fanatically to the last man, and their civilian population was not expected to offer any measurable resistance.

A seaborne invasion of the Japanese home islands was expected to be the most logistically difficult and riskiest military operation in American history, making D-day look like a walk in the park.
Click to expand...
was japan in a position to take over mainland America?
 
Sammy Jankis said:
was japan in a position to take over mainland America?
Click to expand...
I don't agree with the moral standard that as long as Iowa can't be occupied by enemies, we can just turn a blind eye to evil.

Without the complete submission and military occupation of Japan, they had the ability to regroup and re-militarize, and again in the future threaten American citizens and American interests in Hawaii, Guam, Australia, Philippines.

Japan was a dangerous and militaristic nation which had spent the previous 70 years attacking and occupying nations throughout the Pacific Rim.

Our intent was to force Japan to surrender unconditionally, accept a military occupation, and be re-made by us as a pacifist and non-threatening democracy.

We succeeded beyond our widest hopes, as Japan is now a democracy, a close American ally, and is constrained by it's American-drafted constitution from having a powerful military footprint.

So, you have to say in hindsight, Truman made the right decisions in the grand scheme of things.
 
Last edited:
Cypress said:
I don't agree with the moral standard that as long as Iowa can't be occupied by enemies, we can just turn a blind eye to evil.

Without the complete submission and military occupation of Japan, they had the ability to regroup and re-militarize, and again in the future threaten American citizens and American interests in Hawaii, Guam, Australia, Philippines.

Japan was a dangerous and militaristic nation which had spent the previous 70 years attacking and occupying nations throughout the Pacific Rim.

Our intent was to force Japan to surrender unconditionally, accept a military occupation, and be re-made by us as a pacifist and non-threatening democracy.

We succeeded beyond our widest hopes, as Japan is now a democracy, a close American ally, and is constrained by it's constitution from having a powerful military footprint.

So, you have to say in hindsight, Truman made the right decisions in the grand scheme of things.
Click to expand...
So, God is powerless to prevent suffering.
 
gmark77 said:
Interesting. That seemed easy enough. So the countless innocent who were carbonized deserved it? There was no possible alternative?

(Mind you I actually agree that what Truman did was a calculated action to achieve a good end but there WERE more “moral” options
Click to expand...

The ultimate threat of the Soviet Union attacking from the North and the USA from the South would have ended the war without the use of the bomb which mostly killed civilians. Japan knew it was losing the war.
 
Cypress said:
I don't agree with the moral standard that as long as Iowa can't be occupied by enemies, we can just turn a blind eye to evil.

Without the complete submission and military occupation of Japan, they had the ability to regroup and re-militarize, and again in the future threaten American citizens and American interests in Hawaii, Guam, Australia, Philippines.

Japan was a dangerous and militaristic nation which had spent the previous 70 years attacking and occupying nations throughout the Pacific Rim.

Our intent was to force Japan to surrender unconditionally, accept a military occupation, and be re-made by us as a pacifist and non-threatening democracy.

We succeeded beyond our widest hopes, as Japan is now a democracy, a close American ally, and is constrained by it's American-drafted constitution from having a powerful military footprint.

So, you have to say in hindsight, Truman made the right decisions in the grand scheme of things.
Click to expand...
Agreed both history and evil.

Turning a blind way to evil leads to more evil as history has often proved. It's understandable why societies are reluctant to risk the lives of their citizens for anything less than an actual threat.

One example is 9/11. Post-Cold War, our government was quick to turn guns into butter. This continued despite the 1993 WTC bombing and multiple attacks on US personal and offices outside the US leading up to 9/11. Despite warnings, the majority of Americans didn't see the threat.

US leaders recognized the Axis threat but remained neutral through the 30s and early 40s leading up to Pearl Harbor. Lend-Lease toed the line on neutrality and was controversial when enacted in March 1941.

While good people should continue to push for doing good and facing evil, they should also understand that convincing the majority is rarely easy.

Here’s some background information about the 1993 World Trade Center Bombing, which killed six people and injured more than 1,000. Six suspects were convicted of directly participating in the bombing. The seventh suspect, Abdul Rahman Yasin, is still at large.

usafacts.org

What was the Lend-Lease Act? | USAFacts

The Lend-Lease Act allowed the US to provide supplies to Allied powers in exchange for long-term leases for military bases around the world.
usafacts.org usafacts.org
The United States enacted the Lend-Lease Act in March 1941 to support the Allied powers in World War II without directly entering the conflict. The Lend-Lease Act law enabled the US to send weapons, ammunition, food, and equipment to the Allied forces.

In exchange, the Allied powers gave the United States long-term leases at military bases around the world and promised billions in future monies.
 
Phantasmal said:
The ultimate threat of the Soviet Union attacking from the North and the USA from the South would have ended the war without the use of the bomb which mostly killed civilians. Japan knew it was losing the war.
Click to expand...
Disagreed. The Soviets were exhausted and only making a few landgrabs. They lacked the assets to invade Japan like they did Germany.

WWII cost the lives of over 70 million people. In 3.6 years of war, the United States alone suffered 420,000 deaths. That averages over 300 Americans dying every single day. Any leader would be remiss to let that continue one more day if they held the power to stop it immediately.

How many days, weeks or months the peace negotiations would drag on while Americans continued to die in the field is subject to conjecture. Stopping the war ASAP seems to be the best solution, IMHO.

Dropping the bomb was the right thing to do.
 
Cypress said:
I don't agree with the moral standard that as long as Iowa can't be occupied by enemies, we can just turn a blind eye to evil.

Without the complete submission and military occupation of Japan, they had the ability to regroup and re-militarize, and again in the future threaten American citizens and American interests in Hawaii, Guam, Australia, Philippines.

Japan was a dangerous and militaristic nation which had spent the previous 70 years attacking and occupying nations throughout the Pacific Rim.

Our intent was to force Japan to surrender unconditionally, accept a military occupation, and be re-made by us as a pacifist and non-threatening democracy.

We succeeded beyond our widest hopes, as Japan is now a democracy, a close American ally, and is constrained by it's American-drafted constitution from having a powerful military footprint.

So, you have to say in hindsight, Truman made the right decisions in the grand scheme of
Click to expand...

Dutch Uncle said:
Disagreed. The Soviets were exhausted and only making a few landgrabs. They lacked the assets to invade Japan like they did Germany.

WWII cost the lives of over 70 million people. In 3.6 years of war, the United States alone suffered 420,000 deaths. That averages over 300 Americans dying every single day. Any leader would be remiss to let that continue one more day if they held the power to stop it immediately.

How many days, weeks or months the peace negotiations would drag on while Americans continued to die in the field is subject to conjecture. Stopping the war ASAP seems to be the best
Dutch Uncle said:
Disagreed. The Soviets were exhausted and only making a few landgrabs. They lacked the assets to invade Japan like they did Germany.

WWII cost the lives of over 70 million people. In 3.6 years of war, the United States alone suffered 420,000 deaths. That averages over 300 Americans dying every single day. Any leader would be remiss to let that continue one more day if they held the power to stop it immediately.

How many days, weeks or months the peace negotiations would drag on while Americans continued to die in the field is subject to conjecture. Stopping the war ASAP seems to be the best solution, IMHO.

Dropping the bomb was the right thing to do.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

We are never going to agree on this issue. You won’t change my mind, you’ve tried before and didn’t succeed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top