Here Is Why I Don't Believe

[Asimov]

if there is no religion, then where do morals come from? who decides what is moral or not? can one man that doesn't believe in homosexuality decide it is not moral for the person who is in love with someone of the same sex? if there is no God, then where did our morals come from? who decides that a genocide is inmoral?

 

[Seth C Triggs]

if there is no religion, then where do morals come from?

 

In my opinion, there are universal morals and subjective morals. Universal 'morals' are shared by nearly ever human culture, such as the prohibition to murder and steal.

 

Subjective morals are normally applied to things that do not demonstrably harm the society; they are in essence preferences. This is where the legislated homophobia comes in.

 

who decides what is moral or not? can one man that doesn't believe in homosexuality decide it is not moral for the person who is in love with someone of the same sex?

 

They can and do. Check out the fundagelicals in the United States, for example. These are the same types that call homosexuality a "lifestyle" as a term of debasement.

 

if there is no God, then where did our morals come from? who decides that a genocide is inmoral?

 

From us. And genocide is a form of murder, one with an incredibly STUPID basis (race/ethnicity/creed/etc.) Therefore it contains a universal moral.

 

However, religion can often help defeat this moral because if you're taught that a group of people is less holy/less worthy than you, it's easier to kill the group or mistreat the group. This, for example, works very well with religious people and homosexuals.

 

"I don't like it when guys have sex; I find it icky! I know, I'll tell people that GOD said it was bad!"

 

-Seth

[Kurari]

if there is no religion, then where do morals come from? who decides what is moral or not? can one man that doesn't believe in homosexuality decide it is not moral for the person who is in love with someone of the same sex? if there is no God, then where did our morals come from? who decides that a genocide is inmoral?

 

We do. Somebody had to figure all this out for themselves at one point and society decided which ones to adopt. The issues about sex for example really didn't take off until St. Augustine. So yes, one person CAN decide what is moral or not for everyone else.

 

Morals should come from deep thought and common sense, not from a book. We're not stupid creatures, we all have the ability to create morality. I didn't learn until I was in middle school that homosexuality was considered a bad thing. Before that, I had learned that people considered sex pleasurable, so the idea of two people of the same sex making love seemed totally normal to me. After I studied why it was considered bad, even tried to make myself believe it, I ultimately decided it was the most rediculous thing to consider immoral because I could find no good reasons for it to be so. Because somebody told me "God said so" is NOT a good reason. I made the decision that homosexuality was perfectly moral, and the injustice and cruelty that people have perpetrated against gays utterly immoral. And I'm going to be one of the ones changing society's moral outlook on it by supporting gay marriges and working against discrimination against gays and standing up for my gay friends and family when somebody gets on their case.

 

One day, I think homosexuality will be dropped along as a moot point that nobody gives another thought to along with eating shrimp, women not wearing jewelry, and shunning the disabled. WE decide what is moral and what is not, not God.

[freeday]

if there is no religion, then where do morals come from? who decides what is moral or not? can one man that doesn't believe in homosexuality decide it is not moral for the person who is in love with someone of the same sex? if there is no God, then where did our morals come from? who decides that a genocide is inmoral?

What morals?

 

Have you read the 613 laws (moral laws) in the OT, and follow them all?

 

Don't eat shellfish, stone disobedient sons, etc, do you do that?

 

Every religion have something about "Don't murder, don't steal, don't lie".

 

If you look at Game Theory, you'll understand that the best game played is when certain rules or "ethics" are in place. A game of complete chaos and disorder breaks down and disappears. The morals have evolved through the centuries because they saved human lifes. Imagine a society where it would be moral to kill, that tribe would die and disappear, wouldn't it? So it's very simple, these morals or rules, have evolved and grown out from the understanding that this is needed to keep society safe and stable.

 

Animals don't go around and kill each other. I mean, gorillas live in peace in the family, and don't kill each other in there. Why? Do they obey a moral code to avoid it? Why don't they just kill each other since they don't have a godly given moral code on some stone tables? Actually they have found out that gorillas have morals too. They have social structure and "ideas" that they follow and obey to. Ideas that help them maintain stability and peace.

 

Moral is a result of development of the intellect. Nothing more. "We" invented morals, and then we invented God to explain where the morals came from. God is nothing more than the term for the memesphere of ideas.

 

excellent explination of how a person could have morals without any respect towards God. that is what i wanted to know.

 

since i believe Jesus was God reincarnate, the morals explained in the beatitudes on the sermon on the mount, are what christians today should follow. can we live up to His standards? of course not. i can personally say that i have broken several. yet i still believe i can go to heaven. those acknowledging their spiritual poverty are in the best position to experience God's bessing and enjoy his Kingdom.

 

there have been several post saying the bible contradicts itself. i will point out one i saw while looking this up. Mat 5:1 "...he went up on a mountainside and sat down." Luke 6:17 "he went down with them and stood on a level place."

 

we all see things differently, i see a loving God, others see a cell ( me being funny). the books were written by two different authors, maybe he sat the first part of the sermon, and stood the next. maybe there was a level place on the mountainside. maybe this was 2 different sermons. maybe they were more in-tuned with what he said, not where he was. but i find the bible consistent in the overall theme. God loves us and desires a relationship with us.

[Ouroboros]

excellent explination of how a person could have morals without any respect towards God. that is what i wanted to know.

Hope you weren't sarcastic there.

 

Nah, I give you the benefit of a doubt and think that you actually got my point. Glad that you read it.

 

since i believe Jesus was God reincarnate, the morals explained in the beatitudes on the sermon on the mount, are what christians today should follow. can we live up to His standards? of course not. i can personally say that i have broken several. yet i still believe i can go to heaven. those acknowledging their spiritual poverty are in the best position to experience God's bessing and enjoy his Kingdom.

 

there have been several post saying the bible contradicts itself. i will point out one i saw while looking this up. Mat 5:1 "...he went up on a mountainside and sat down." Luke 6:17 "he went down with them and stood on a level place."

 

we all see things differently, i see a loving God, others see a cell ( me being funny). the books were written by two different authors, maybe he sat the first part of the sermon, and stood the next. maybe there was a level place on the mountainside. maybe this was 2 different sermons. maybe they were more in-tuned with what he said, not where he was. but i find the bible consistent in the overall theme. God loves us and desires a relationship with us.

In my view, we are Jesus, and we are God. The story about Jesus isn't a particular person in history that walked and taught things and did miracles and was reborn through his sacrifice, but the story is what we are supposed to become and be. We are supposed to be Jesus. Sacrifice ourself, help others, be kind, helpful, loving, healing them (not miraculous, but through whatever we can do, talking, medicine, comfort). That's what the Gospel is to me. Nothing but the story about the image of a person that hates religious dogma, fundamentalist and literalism (the Pharisees and Saduccees), but loves the little people and want to help them.

 

When the story becomes that kind of reality for you, you have been "saved'. Not when you believe the stories as historical events. Just to believe Jesus existed for real, and was a historical figure, does not change you a bit. You have to get into the role of being this "perfect" person. (Now the Gospel stories are not really a perfect person, but I think this is the purpose of the Jesus story)

 

You have to die from your life of religion (the Pharisees, fight the dragons), and be born into the freedom of your own independent faith and trust in the "godly" powers that you have within you. And you start striving to become the Jesus you see inside you. That's spirituality. You are God, and you can become Jesus.

[Kuroikaze]

 

We do. Somebody had to figure all this out for themselves at one point and society decided which ones to adopt. The issues about sex for example really didn't take off until St. Augustine. So yes, one person CAN decide what is moral or not for everyone else.

 

 

 

Damn I hate St Augustine. Even back when I was a christian and I was taking theology classes and we studied him I remember thinking that Augustine's theology was nuts and made a mockery of christianity.

[Lycorth]

Even back when I was a christian and I was taking theology classes and we studied him I remember thinking that Augustine's theology was nuts and made a mockery of christianity.

 

"You cannot tarnish a rusted blade." - Lt. Worf

 

[Anakin]

i was not trying to baite you. i would never jump into the moral gene debate. i don't think such a gene exists, unless you were trying to incinuate that the Holy spirite would jump in our hearts and give us morals. as crazy as it sounds, that is what i beleive.

When I said I wasn't going to bite on the morality gene debate, I thought you were heading

in a direction that made me think of this:

 

http://www.geocities.com/b_r_a_d_99/moralgene.htm

 

so no, it is inmorall to do genocide based on my standards........ so my whole take on the sittuation is that the genocides are a result of culture and of an infinite wisdom.

If you would please elaborate on this. Are you saying that by our human standards, genocide is

immoral, but the source of infinite wisdom (which I assume you mean god) has a different

standard? So in his infinite wisdom he ordered the slaughter?

[Antlerman]

if there is no religion, then where do morals come from? who decides what is moral or not? can one man that doesn't believe in homosexuality decide it is not moral for the person who is in love with someone of the same sex? if there is no God, then where did our morals come from? who decides that a genocide is inmoral?

The morals of religion came from man. The world survived long before the Hebrews presented the more lasting form of their God in the 5th century BCE. Who decides what is moral or not? You do, I do, we all do. Do you run to the Bible everyday for everything? Of course not. Society teaches us its rules.

 

That's why the rules are different for each society and people who encounter different societies often misunderstand this about morality and condemn others as immoral, godless, deserving of their god's "anger". Next their "god" orders the godless one's bloodline to removed from existance, from the infant to the elderly, so their godlessnes does not polute the "true morals" of the tribe with this "filth" of foreign values to them. Just turn your gaze my friend to the Taliban and the Islamic fundamentalists for a up close example of this age old fact.

 

Sound mighty ridiculous. Genocide is committed by ignorant men. Yaheweh in the OT is the political arm of these ignorant men. It is completely obvious. Every argument to justify this is so much blah, blah absurdities that reveal a fear to face the facts in the eyes of the blind faithful.

 

Which is easier to believe? Which stands the test of questions?? I accept the above. It makes sense, not all this theological obstical course crap.

[Kuroikaze]

Even back when I was a christian and I was taking theology classes and we studied him I remember thinking that Augustine's theology was nuts and made a mockery of christianity.

 

"You cannot tarnish a rusted blade." - Lt. Worf

 

 

hehe good point

 

though I was refering to what I thought as a christian, so back then I wouldn't have agreed.

[Kuroikaze]

The thing I see most christians here saying is that we all have this desire to see evil punished, and God was just punishing evil when he ordered all of these people to be killed.

 

Amy herself compared the people that god supposedly ordered killed as being no better than Hitler

 

It seems you missed the point of my post in the first place. The bible demonized these people, and I was trying to humanize them. To make you see that these people were not demons, they were just like everyone else.

 

It is inconvievable to me that ANY culture at any time in history was so horible that it needed to be destoryed down to every last child and piece of live stock.

 

It is my very point that this passage seemed to be just an attempt the ancient Jews made at justifying their racism. Who is evil enough to be totally wiped off the face of the planet? A whole culture was that evil? That just seems nuts to me.

 

I guess all of you would rather trust a book of propoganda then you're own senses. But really, does it actually make sense to any of you that an entire group of people down to infants and cattle were all so evil they had to be slaughtered? Are you saying my story is false because these people were probably so evil they didn't love their own children or something?

 

I'm really trying to make sense of your postion, but somehow I just don't understand how you can think these things....I guess I left christianity a while ago now so I've lost touch with your postion. I can remember the days when I, myself, would have said many of the same things as you, but its a mystery as to how I could have concieved of those arguements making sense.

 

Honestly, when I think back to that time and how twisted my ideas were I become sick just thinking about it.

[SkepticOfBible]

we all see things differently, i see a loving God, others see a cell ( me being funny). the books were written by two different authors, maybe he sat the first part of the sermon, and stood the next. maybe there was a level place on the mountainside. maybe this was 2 different sermons. maybe they were more in-tuned with what he said, not where he was.

 

Or like the evidence suggest, the Gospels were a outcome of the Oral Tradition from the early church, which is why they contradict each other. Ever played chinese whispers. That's exactly what had happened to the jesus story.

 

http://www.scripturecatholic.com/oral_tradition.html

 

But then from your point of view, these authors were not writing their own opinion were they?They were writing under the guidance of the HS. So why do 2 HS filled person contradict each other?

[freeday]

i was not trying to baite you. i would never jump into the moral gene debate. i don't think such a gene exists, unless you were trying to incinuate that the Holy spirite would jump in our hearts and give us morals. as crazy as it sounds, that is what i beleive.

When I said I wasn't going to bite on the morality gene debate, I thought you were heading

in a direction that made me think of this:

 

http://www.geocities.com/b_r_a_d_99/moralgene.htm

 

so no, it is inmorall to do genocide based on my standards........ so my whole take on the sittuation is that the genocides are a result of culture and of an infinite wisdom.

If you would please elaborate on this. Are you saying that by our human standards, genocide is

immoral, but the source of infinite wisdom (which I assume you mean god) has a different

standard? So in his infinite wisdom he ordered the slaughter?

 

 

there are many takes on this, these are my thoughts. i would have to reread, but i will give my best account from memory. God promised moses the holy land. i like to think of the holy land in the OT as a metaphor for heaven. Moses never even made it there, so i can conclude that when he died, he went to the big holy land in the sky. maybe God said go take your earthly holy land and i will help you. enabled them to win. with the culture at the time they would have killed everyone. that's how wars were fought. you killed them all, burned there crops, enslaved the skilled people. to ensure the society would fail. like the debate about the hardened heart. did God really harden the pharoes heart, or was it percieved that way. or if God is all knowing, did he say i will harden his heart now just to go ahead and get this overwith, because i know the outcome allready. if you knew the events of the future, would you not go ahead and kill the terrorist that did the 911 plane crashes before they were done. i would find that just.

[Ouroboros]

did God really harden the pharoes heart, or was it percieved that way. or if God is all knowing, did he say i will harden his heart now just to go ahead and get this overwith, because i know the outcome allready. if you knew the events of the future, would you not go ahead and kill the terrorist that did the 911 plane crashes before they were done. i would find that just.

Sorry, but I can't find judgment against someone's non-actions be just.

 

It's not right or just to condmen someone for what they might have done if they had been alive. That's the same reasoning many wars in the world started. You start a war against another country because you percieve a threat from them, but not because they actually have attacked you yet.

 

Since there's only one time line. The people that would have/could have done something bad later on, they never got the chance to do the bad thing, since they're dead, so they never would or could have done it then.

 

God would have known these people to never be a threat, since he knew he would send Israel to kill them. This conundrum can be solved with God seeing two different time lines of outcome. Then we must ask ourself, with two possible timelines, didn't God knew already which one was just hypothetical and which one was the real and final one before it happened? Or were they both hypothetical only, which means he just plays Chess, and not really "know" the fixed outcome? Did you follow that?

 

Another view is that if someone is judged based on what they could have done, the judgment is not on their actions (since the actions never occured), but on their intentions or thoughts. How come doesn't God do that all the time? Stop crime before it happens, kill the babies before they become serial killers. Maybe all abortions are called by God to prevent dangerous potentional Hitlers to be born? How would you know? And how would you know it's not?

[Asuryan]

Another view is that if someone is judged based on what they could have done, the judgment is not on their actions (since the actions never occured), but on their intentions or thoughts. How come doesn't God do that all the time? Stop crime before it happens, kill the babies before they become serial killers. Maybe all abortions are called by God to prevent dangerous potentional Hitlers to be born? How would you know? And how would you know it's not?

 

 

 

Plus, another thing. Hitler, and the terrorists that destroyed the twin towers, are not born from outer space. They have been raised and brought up and had experiences which led them to believe in a certain way and believe certain things. In Hitler's case, if you killed him before he joined the nationalsocialist party, odds are that since the context would STILL be there (a context with extreme poverty in germany, enraged people, rich hebrew merchants, strong suspicion and distaste for hebrews, and recently published essays about how to control and steer mobs of people) another one like him would've come out in a couple years at most.

 

Thinking "I'll go back in time and kill Biff before he marries out my mother" etc etc is something that only back in future can propose, because it is a movie, but for those of us who study social sciences or social psychology, it is easy to see how the context DID indeed spawn certain people and phenomena.

 

 

 

In order: you'll have to counteract the extreme poverty and inflation running rampant in germany after World war 1 - that poverty and inflation enraged the people, and encouraged them to turn to the first person able to get them out of their misery, no matter the means. So you'll have to change the whole outcome of WW1, or at least the condition imposed to Germany as a defeated nation.

 

Then you'll have to counteract the social disparity between rich hebrews and poor non-hebrews. To do so, you'll have to go back to the middle ages: jews could lend money for an interest, while non-jews couldn't (it was prohibited by their religion, and considered heresy). Jews were mostly bankers and moneylenders in the middle ages. Many rich hebrews in a country full of very poor and enraged germans contribute to the problem. So it would be necessary to allow christians in the middle ages, somehow, to lend money for an interest without it being considered a sin. You'll have to change the whole social context that brought christians to think they couldn't lend money, while hebrews could.

 

Then you'll have to counteract the suspicions and hatred of christians for hebrews: easier said than done. in Europe, hebrews have been despised and hated for many, many centuries. I.E. crusaders found normal, while they were en route for jerusalem, to assault a city and pillage it "because there are hebrews inside". The spanish inquisition forced people to convert to christianity... both muslims and hebrews. If an hebrew (or muslim) went back to his old faith, he was brought away by the inquisition. Autodafes were rampant in the middle ages: burning hebrews was considered a nice entertainment for the people and a cleansing of heretics (they didn't believe in jesus after all).

 

 

 

You see, freeday? Hitler was a son of his times. This doesn't justify what he did, but it explains it, and shows you why it would be completely useless to go back in time and kill him. Hitler didn't what he did because he was "eeevil", he did so because of his context - he really thought what he was doing was right, after all in those years, the Pope kept saying that hebrews WERE the culprits of jesus' death and torture, so the blood of jesus was on their hands, and that they were deserving of a punishment.

[Lycorth]

In God's case, extreme measures are taken to prevent the spread of evil. Nip in the bud.

 

But your god is all-powerful, all-present, all-knowing, and all-good, right? He shouldn't need "extreme measures" - those are only for gods who don't have ultimate power at their disposal. Only gods who need to struggle to implement their will need to use any sort of measures; your god is depicted as being all-powerful, so why does he not simply erase all evil with a thought?

 

He could make the universe a paradise, with just a thought. If he can create the universe, he can cleanse it - without playing games or waiting a moment.

 

Why does he not do this? Is it because he is either a cruel god who likes to torment and play games with the little beings he makes... or is it because he simply doesn't exist?

 

No being can be all-good and all-powerful and not understand its moral obligation to destroy evil. Hence, the Xian god cannot exist.

[Japedo]

 

this is why i think most people resort to being athiest unfortunately, you look at God as a monster, but nothing could be further from the truth. with evolution, there are no reprocusions for immoral behavior. these pagans that were slaughtered were guilty of worshiping idols, child sacrifice, raping of women. it was a horrindous society. God does not delight in the death of the wicked.

 

What 'Pagan religion was this so we can investigate these charges? I have a feeling this is like many things Christians don't like or agree with, they slant the truth, exaggerate and add a little horrifying drama so people won't question their god. Rape is a horrific crime but a death penalty to an entire society of people is more horrific and is not a just judgment. Child Sacrifice I'd like to see some facts about this particular pagan religion before I jump on the justifying bandwagon. Idol worship...? These people had no idea who Yahweh was, Him murdering an entire society because they don't know or worship him is not a very loving or understanding god. God destroyed the golden calf to the ungrateful people he freed who decided to worship the calf yet spared the people's lives. Yet, you sit here and tell us you're going to justify him slaughtering men, women and children who were pagans and didn't see any of "his" miracle because of some idol worship? Nice set of double standers your god has.

 

Where was god prior to Moses anyhow? He didn't exist is where, laws weren't handed down about worship,marriage or anything else until that time which gives you Christians zero wiggle room for the murders committed by god to the people of Sodom and Gomorrah or the great flood. If god was even remotely fair the laws would have come with the creation of man.

 

why are you blasting God for pronouncing judgement. He is the Father and creator. When you child does wrong, do you not correct them. If you murder somebody, do you not get sentenced to death. (unless you are in california)

 

Depending on the state which you do the crime, and depending on your resources is the death penalty even applied or asked for. One has to commit first degree murder to even be considered for death by state. In our Justice system things are set up were the guilty can defend him/herself and their actions. If you want to talk about murder how come Moses wasn't put to death for the murder of the Guard? Like so many other murders he happened to find 'god' after his crime. Eternal burning the heretics at the stake is not a fair or just sentence for the simple crime of not believing. God is not just, he's selective and tribal. It all depends with him ya see. he plays favorites and justice is rarely done by him.

 

and for another fact. why are you guys getting hung up in the Old Testament. there is a new covanent through Jesus.

 

 

According to who? what supposed thing did JC do while he was here that broke the covenant with god/man to follow the law? If god promised something was a binding agreement even after the world itself passes then nothing will be able to undo that covenant, not even a new one unless you agree that god does contradict himself?

 

[Kuroikaze]

Here's one for you. As horrible as it was, would you agree that unless America had dropped the bomb on Hiroshima that Japan would have never surrendered? Many inncocent people died but it was a necessary force to prevent the war from continuing and thus many more of our own soldiers would have died. In God's case, extreme measures are taken to prevent the spread of evil. Nip in the bud.

 

 

actually no, the dropping of Atom Bombs on civilian cities is, in my opinion, one of the worst choices our goverment ever made. It was an act that was as close to "evil" that one can get in this world. Are you arguing that the ends justify the means? because most christians I know would disagree with you on that.

 

In any case, if you knew the history of WW2 well you would know that the bombs were unessary. Before the bombs had dropped the Japansse emporer had already ordered the generals to consider peace. (I've actually done quite a bit of reasearch on this topic)

 

Also I think it would be wrong to think of the Japanese as nessaraly "evil" in this war, they were doing what they thought was best for their country. It may not have been good for other countries but then look at the U.S. is every action our government takes in the best interest of all other countires involved? Of course not. In my opinion, the only difference between us and imperielist Japan is one of perspective. Heck, these days we even come complete with prison camps.

 

It is also believed by many historians that the choice to drop the bomb was not really leveled at defeating the Japanesse but was an opening power play in the Cold War that the president saw comming with Russia.

 

So sorry, I don't really agree with you at all here.

[Checkmate]

This is like the umpteenth time that some Christian has proposed that god is justified in behaving like a petulant child, or even a wise exterminator, mercifully getting rid of a "pest" (humanity). Even as you write that idea, you should be disgusted with yourself. Actually confessing that your "god" is LIMITED to the behavior of mortal men? An all-powerful god can't find any other way to solve his problems other than genocide?

 

Defending and rationalizing the GENOCIDE of humanity, by your "loving", ominscient, omnipotent and MERCIFUL "god"? Are you fucking insane?!?!?

 

Amy Marie, since you adore fictional accounts as opposed to the truth, let me direct your attention to an episode of Star Trek™.

 

In the original series, the Federation was at war with the Klingon Empire. The war was coming to a head at this one planet, filled with a peaceful, humanoid race, called the Organians. Captain Kirk was convinced that these people required his protection from the Klingons, but they assured him that they were fine. Well, as usual, the war escalated, and things got out of control, when suddenly, those peaceful people decided to show Kirk and the Klingons the true meaning of POWER.

 

It turned out that the Organians has achieved GODHOOD. And without so much as raising a sweat they simultaneously appeared upon every military vessel and occupied world of both empires to STOP their war. They made each and every weapon and instrument and person too hot to touch, so NO WAR could be waged. And this condition would continue until they the Federation and the Klingons signed a peace treaty. Which they did.

 

The war was ended. Peace reigned supreme. And all done by the GODS without KILLING everyone who offended or sinned.

 

Now, if Gene Roddenberry, could envision such an easy and rational solution to a natural human problem, why couldn't/can't your "god", Amy Marie?

 

I'll tell you why. "JEHOVAH/JESUS/GOD" IS NOT REAL! Primitive men who wrote your bible don't possess the imagination of having a "god" of peace that can PEACEFULLY stop sin from occurring. All their primitive minds understand is VIOLENCE. Which is why the bible is FILLED WITH VIOLENCE from your god. MAN imagined and wrote it! There is NO GOD INVOLVED.

 

Why is this simple concept SO FAR beyond your mortal kin? Why are you being so obtuse? I'm making sense. Other people are making sense. You're simply being obstinately stupid by denying this obvious truth.

[Ouroboros]

Here's one for you. As horrible as it was, would you agree that unless America had dropped the bomb on Hiroshima that Japan would have never surrendered? Many inncocent people died but it was a necessary force to prevent the war from continuing and thus many more of our own soldiers would have died. In God's case, extreme measures are taken to prevent the spread of evil. Nip in the bud.

Do you know how many innocent babies and kids that died in that blast and those who died years after of radiation poisioning? Typical Christian, to torture and punish the innocent to gain control and power over a situation. That's Christian moral and love for you, kill people, because they think they have the God given right to do so. Shame on you Amy! Shame on you!

 

And also: (source)

General Curtis LeMay, publically declared that the war would have been over in two weeks, and that the atomic bomb had nothing to do with bringing about surrender. President Truman’s friend and Chief of Staff, five star Admiral William D. Leahy was deeply angered: The “use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender. . . n being the first to use it, we . . . adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages.”

 

There are still debate if Japan actually already had surrendered, even some say Japan had been tryting to surrender for weeks but US stopped it.

 

Why was the bomb used? The conventional view, of course, is that it was to save as many lives as possible. But if this is so, several historians now ask, why did President Truman and his chief adviser Secretary of State James Byrnes make it harder for Japan to surrender? Specifically, why did they remove assurances for the Japanese emperor from the July 1945 Potsdam Proclamation warning Japan to surrender? The assurances were strongly recommended by U.S. and British military leaders, and removing them, they knew, would make it all but impossible for Japan to end the war.

 

A traditional theory has been that the President feared political criticism if he provided assurances to the emperor. But, other historians note, leading Republicans were for–not against–clarifying the terms to achieve a surrender, and were calling for this publicly. Moreover, American leaders always knew the emperor would be needed to order a surrender–and, of course, in the end they did agree to an understanding which allowed such assurances: Japan still has an emperor.

 

Hasegawa believes the assurances were taken out of the Potsdam Proclamation precisely because American leaders wanted to have the warning rejected so as to justify the bombing–and, further, that they saw the bomb as a way to end the war before Russia could join the fighting. There is other evidence suggesting that policy makers, especially Secretary of State Byrnes, wanted to use the bomb to “make the Russians more manageable in Europe”--as he told one scientist

 

I've read some other articles, and one of the theories why the bomb was used, was to test it. It was a live experiment my dear Amy. We intentionally, with a cold heart and cold head, murdered thousands and thousands of people, not to end the war, but to see the effects of the new weapon.

[julian]

Here's one for you. As horrible as it was, would you agree that unless America had dropped the bomb on Hiroshima that Japan would have never surrendered? Many inncocent people died but it was a necessary force to prevent the war from continuing and thus many more of our own soldiers would have died. In God's case, extreme measures are taken to prevent the spread of evil. Nip in the bud.

 

Umm...

 

"The Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing ... I hated to see our country be the first to use such a weapon," Eisenhower said in 1963.

 

"Neither the atomic bombing nor the entry of the Soviet Union into the war forced Japan's unconditional surrender. She was defeated before either these events took place." -Brig. General Bonnie Fellers

 

" ... By April 1945, Japan's leaders realized that the war was lost. Their main stumbling block to surrender was the United States' insistence on unconditional surrender. They specifically needed to know whether the United States would allow Hirohito to remain on the throne. They feared that the United States would depose him, try him as a war criminal, or even execute him ...

 

Unconditional surrender was a policy of revenge, and it hurt America's national self-interest. It prolonged the war in both Europe and East Asia, and it helped to expand Soviet power in those areas."

 

From The Decision to Drop the Atomic Bomb (Praeger, 1996), by historian Dennis D. Wainstock

 

"My staff was unanimous in believing that Japan was on the point of collapse and surrender."

-General Douglas MacArthur, Commander of US Army forces in the Pacific

 

 

http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v16/v16n3p-4_Weber.html

[Golden Meadows]

Here's one for you. As horrible as it was, would you agree that unless America had dropped the bomb on Hiroshima that Japan would have never surrendered? Many inncocent people died but it was a necessary force to prevent the war from continuing and thus many more of our own soldiers would have died. In God's case, extreme measures are taken to prevent the spread of evil. Nip in the bud.

 

Amy, you astonish me! Tell me you really don't think this, tell me it aint so. Is a Japaneese person not as human as you are? Are you more worthy of Gods love than they are? The dropping of the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were evil acts as was the carpet bombing of German cities by the allies in WW2. Its never right, never just to wipe out non combatents, to wipe out whole cities.

 

Incidently the dropping on the 2nd A bomb on Nagasaki destroyed in a flash of light the biggest xtian community of its kind in the Far East. Nagasaki was known as the city of xtian martyrs from the 16th century, e.g Paul Miki and all the rest who were crucified with him. It is ironic that it was a xtian A-Bomb that was to destroy his city.

[Ouroboros]

With all those facts about Hiroshima, we can only conclude that it is truly a perfect example of Gods actions. God also would attack, destroy, maim, kill and torture innocent people for the few guilty ones. The OT is full of those stories. And it's strange that most of the time, the guilty ones doesn't get the hit at all. Just like the Iraq war, we went in there to get Saddam. Saddam is still alive, but we killed plenty of people, both soldiers and civilians to get to him. Why don't we, and also God, just go ahead and kill the guilty one, and spare the innocent?

 

To illustrate this, imagine a family where one person is doing something terrible. The SWAT team goes in and kill everyone, and bystanders on the street, and blow up the whole neighborhood, but they save the culprit. Take the culprit to trial and sentence him to lifetime prison. Was it really justice?

 

If collateral damage is accepted to seek justice for the few criminals, why don't we just drop a couple of nuclear bombs over middle east and get it finished once and for all? Ridiculous thinking isn't it.

[Checkmate]

Here's one for you. As horrible as it was, would you agree that unless America had dropped the bomb on Hiroshima that Japan would have never surrendered? Many inncocent people died but it was a necessary force to prevent the war from continuing and thus many more of our own soldiers would have died. In God's case, extreme measures are taken to prevent the spread of evil. Nip in the bud.

Do you know how many innocent babies and kids that died in that blast and those who died years after of radiation poisioning? Typical Christian, to torture and punish the innocent to gain control and power over a situation. That's Christian moral and love for you, kill people, because they think they have the God given right to do so. Shame on you Amy! Shame on you!

Ditto from Mount Crumpett! Shame on you, Amy! What a reprehensible thing to say. I mean, I like to fancy myself as an evil person, but not even ME, on my worse day, would write something so horrid. You not only have demonstrated your ignorance of the issues, but a marked callousness and disregard for human life. Please return and apologize for these words of yours. For I would really hate to believe that such is your true position. Christian or human, that's a pretty shitty attitude you're sporting there.

 

To carry forth your analogy, I suppose you believe that Hitler was justified in his actions? His goal was to revitalize his nation and he did so. Never mind that it cost millions of innocent HUMANS their lives. The ends justifies the means, isn't that right? That's the "Godly" attribute you love?

 

I hope you're a spoofer, Amy Marie. I REALLY do. Shameful.

[Vigile]

Christian morality. Ya' gotta' love it.