And you're proud to be christian?

[Booko]

Let me add that I understand that what you are trying to do is show that LogDog is wrong to try to defame an entire religion by the actions of a few. But there must be a better way of doing that than to insult Einstein.

I thought she was merely taking into account the capacity of her intended audience. Or did you mean a different example would have been preferable?

 

[Popeyesays]

What was the religious persuasion of the person who actually made the decision to drop the bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

I hesitate to point this out, because I do not wish to engage in the kind of “Christian bashing” that was perhaps intended with this thread, nor do I wish to blame the whole of Christianity for the actions of one. But for you to blame this on Albert Einstein, and to imply that it is somehow connected to his atheism is obscene, disgusting, offensive and just plain stupid! Einstein was not only a brilliant man, but also a man of great moral character and insight. He was an atheist but he was also a man of great spirituality. He did not invent this weapon, he did not build this weapon, and he did not use this weapon.

The decision to use this weapon ultimately came from Harry S. Truman – a Baptist! . . . . . .

Einstein did not develop the bomb, nor did he invent it. The scientists who DID develop the bomb were largely Fermi and Oppenheimer--both Christians, or nominally Christians.

They approached Einstein with the news that the Germans under Heisenberg were developing the bomb and asked Einstein to write a letter to Roosevelt to warn of the consequences of such a bomb in German hands. Einstein lent his prestige to Fermi and Oppenheimer, not his expertise. That was the end of Einstein's participation in developing the atmoic bomb, from there it became a military research program under the auspices of the Army Corps of Engineers.

My maternal grandfather was the financial comptroller of the Manhattan Project.

When Germany surrendered in April of 1945, the bomb remained untested, though near completion. Heisenberg never got close. He and his colleagues w4ere still under the impression that it would require a ton or more of fissionable metal to detonate a nuclear explosion.

When Truman took the presidency in 1945, no one told him about the bomb until the first test was ready to fire.

The decision to use the bombs was a group decision. The authority to use it came from Truman.

I don't know where you studied history of the war, or if you ever studied it at all, but you seem very naive about it.

MacArthur was preparing an invasion of Japan. The last required step was the conquest of Okinawa. When Okinawa fell the invasion could be launched, but there were a lot of problems facing an invasion.

1) July in the northern Pacific is taiphoon season. A single taiphoon in late July cost the US a large amount of shipping for any invasion and another could develop at any other time until October or November. A taiphoon hitting the invasion beach was a guaranteed wipeout of any invasion plans, and the whole force of troops could be lost.

2) MacArthur and the Pentagon (George C. Marshall) were predicting the loss of one million casualties just on the American side--casualties in that case included dead and wounded who would have to be evacuated. That's a million AMERICAN casualties for a successful invasion. The Japanese loss would have been three to five million.

3) The bombs over Hiroshima and Nagasaki took about 300,000 casualties in Japan and no casualties on the American side. Japan had already suffered more than a million deaths just from the bombings of Tokyo.

Do the math:

1 million American casualties plus a minimum of three million Japanese casualties put the cost in human lives at approximately four million lives to defeat Japan.

vs.:

300,000 dead from the bomb. That's one sixteenth the number of casualties that an invasion would inflict.

I would submit it was a moral decision to use the bombs instead of invade.

Regards,
Scott

 

[ChristineES]

No, I never meant to say that Einstein was to blame for the attacks in Japan, I was just trying to make a point, I actually admire the man. He said that he was sorry that his "split atom" discovery lead to the invention of the bomb. I don't really know what Einstein believed, he sometimes seemed more agnostic than atheist.
I am not ashamed of being a Christian. I am ashamed of the way this Church behaved about this war hero. All people are sinners, every last one. If you deny this one hero's memorial because you think he sinned, you might as well not have a memorial to any war heroes, because everyone sins in different ways. (What is a sin is as usual up for debate).
It was the title of the post that set me off, not the article, because I love being a follower of Jesus and am in no way ashamed of Him. There is intolerance to gays no doubt, but there is also intolerance for Christians, too. I think it is wrong to justify intolerance with intolerance, because that is hypocrisy.

 

[Storm]

It was the title of the post that set me off, not the article, because I love being a follower of Jesus and am in no way ashamed of Him. There is intolerance to gays no doubt, but there is also intolerance for Christians, too. I think it is wrong to justify intolerance with intolerance, because that is hypocrisy.

Unfortunately, Christine, Zeno called this way back on page 1:

Flamebait posts only persist due to the attention they are paid. Don't take the bait!

See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(Internet)

 

[fantome profane]

The decision to use the bombs was a group decision. The authority to use it came from Truman.

Semantics.

As I said I am not judging Harry S. Truman. I don’t agree, but I consider myself extremely lucky that such a decision was not mine. Military predictions aside, we don’t really know what would have happened if he had decided not to use this weapon.

But all this is way off topic. I merely wished to point out, as you stated, that Einstein did not invent nor develop the bomb. And perhaps more importantly to point you that we cannot blame this action on “atheists” or “Christians” or “Baptists”.

 

[ChristineES]

Unfortunately, Christine, Zeno called this way back on page 1:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zeno
Flamebait posts only persist due to the attention they are paid. Don't take the bait!

See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(Internet)

_

Strangely, I used to be able to ignore such things, but unfortunately I did take the bait and became angry. It wasn't good for my health, either. Next time I won't go to this forum when I am already in a bad mood,( for why you don't want to hear about so I won't mention why.) I hope to follow my own advice and not read any thread with a similar title ever again.

 

[Storm]

Strangely, I used to be able to ignore such things, but unfortunately I did take the bait and became angry. It wasn't good for my health, either. Next time I won't go to this forum when I am already in a bad mood,( for why you don't want to hear about so I won't mention why.) I hope to follow my own advice and not read any thread with a similar title ever again.

We all slip up from time to time. :hug:

 

[Jeremiah]

but there is also intolerance for Christians, too.

They have earned it.

 

[*Paul*]

But I think you're sort of avoiding the question. You're saying that THEY THINK it's a sin because they think if they give that man a funeral service that they're somehow sanctioning or forgiving his homosexuality,

Basically that by doing the memorial they are giving the impression that they don't have a spiritual problem with homosexuality.

and that this will encourage others to practice homosexual behavior.

Not at all but that it would lessen the strength of their stance against this sin that God calls an abomination. It would be as though they did not take it seriously.

But they think this way because they believe that they're responsible for the thoughts and desires and actions of other people, when clearly they are not.
Do you believe that your words and behaviors effect my choices?

This question is based on your thinking that I think it encourages homosexual behaviour, but that's not my concern and I don't believe it was theirs.

Do you believe that my sins are your fault if you don't punish me for them? It's ideas like these that form the foundation of Christian arrogance and bigotry.

And it's wrong assumptions like these that account for a lot of the anti christian rhetoric of today.

I agree with you that this is likely what they're thinking. But their thinking is wrong, and is based on ego and hubris, and that's why they actions are so spiteful, in spite of their supposed good intentions.

It's based on the word of God, they are afraid to be seen to tolerate a sin that God calls an abomination.

 

[*Paul*]

Very true, *Paul* and yet here there are conflicting values and principles, and the question is which values and principles of God's the mere humans chose to assert.

They could just as well have concluded that since Christ showed an example of hanging with sinners in order to bring them to God, and since compassion toward the bereaved is a principle, they might've chosen the other way.

Unfortunately being on dial up at the moment I'm not able to see the video, so more detailed comment is not really possible.

Christ never condoned sin though, he would confront people with their sins and say such things as "go and sin no more". He had no problem to be friends with sinners and He still is but you find in scripture that is is the repentant type that He was the friend of, not those who openely and brazenly sinned. He was no friend of the pharisees because they would not admit their own sinfulness. I can be and have been friends with homosexuals but I do not pretend that what they do is somehow fine with what I believe.

 

[A. Ben-Shema]

Maybe not for you, but did it ever occur to you that just because you dislike Christianity, and certain people, that not everyone agrees with you? Or *gasp* that some people might feel the opposite way you do despite your silly, not well-thought out criticisms?

My point is that religions claim to be (and should be) 'Spiritual' - to teach 'Spirituality'. There is nothing 'Spiritual' about humanitarian or political works. As I said, even atheists may be involved in these.

Jesus Himself was in no way interested in such things. He fed the poor (in Spirit) with 'Spiritual' food - the Spiritual Manna from Heaven. He did not come to do humanitarian work, or get involved with politics.

But religions actually know nothing of the Spirit, so they partake in the next best thing - material help.

 

[Popeyesays]

No, I never meant to say that Einstein was to blame for the attacks in Japan, I was just trying to make a point, I actually admire the man. He said that he was sorry that his "split atom" discovery lead to the invention of the bomb. I don't really know what Einstein believed, he sometimes seemed more agnostic than atheist.
I am not ashamed of being a Christian. I am ashamed of the way this Church behaved about this war hero. All people are sinners, every last one. If you deny this one hero's memorial because you think he sinned, you might as well not have a memorial to any war heroes, because everyone sins in different ways. (What is a sin is as usual up for debate).
It was the title of the post that set me off, not the article, because I love being a follower of Jesus and am in no way ashamed of Him. There is intolerance to gays no doubt, but there is also intolerance for Christians, too. I think it is wrong to justify intolerance with intolerance, because that is hypocrisy.

Einstein had nothing to dow with splitting atoms. He developed both general and special relativity theories, but again they have nothing to do with splitting atoms.

Heisenberg and others managed to split atoms. Fermi was the individeual who created a sustained reaction atomic pile-where fission continued under controlled conditions for long periods of time.

Einstein did none of these things. Relativity had nothing to do with these things.

Credit and blame where they might be due, Einstein has none of the credit or blame for developing fission as an energy source (military or peaceful).

Regards,
Scott

 

[MaddLlama]

My point is that religions claim to be (and should be) 'Spiritual' - to teach 'Spirituality'. There is nothing 'Spiritual' about humanitarian or political works. As I said, even atheists may be involved in these.

Maybe to you they aren't. Some people consider their whole lives to be a spiritual experience, and can find spiritual meaning in many things including charity work. Just because atheists do something doesn't mean that theists who do the same thing can't find spiritual meaning in it. I know Pagans who see camping as a spiritual experience. Atheists go camping too, but that doesn't mean that the Pagan finds it any less meaningful.
As I have said to you dozens of times: just because you personally don't find something spiritual in an experience doesn't mean nobody else does. You seem to be under the erroneous impression that you are the sole judge of what is and what isn't spiritual. Here is some news for you: you aren't.

Jesus Himself was in no way interested in such things. He fed the poor (in Spirit) with 'Spiritual' food - the Spiritual Manna from Heaven. He did not come to do humanitarian work, or get involved with politics.

So what?

But religions actually know nothing of the Spirit, so they partake in the next best thing - material help.

I think it's actually you who doesn't know anything about spiritual experience. You talk so much about how many things simply cannot be seen as spiritual, and as yet I have yet to hear you talk about what is. There must be so little spiritual experience in your life, which would actually explain why you're so ignorant on the subject.

 

[Booko]

My point is that religions claim to be (and should be) 'Spiritual' - to teach 'Spirituality'. There is nothing 'Spiritual' about humanitarian or political works. As I said, even atheists may be involved in these.

I'm sorry you've not found anything spiritual in humanitarian work, but just because you haven't found it does not mean it isn't there.

Jesus Himself was in no way interested in such things. He fed the poor (in Spirit) with 'Spiritual' food - the Spiritual Manna from Heaven. He did not come to do humanitarian work, or get involved with politics.

He also fed them actual material food and healed people from material as well as spiritual disease. So apparently He did find something useful about assisting people in times of need. His remarks on politics are clear enough, and who knows, perhaps a miracle will occur and we'll agree on that much.

But religions actually know nothing of the Spirit, so they partake in the next best thing - material help.

Every time you make a pronouncement about "religions" and what they know and do not know, all it reveals is how little you know about "religions."

You can start your education on "religions" by popping into the Hinduism area. Perhaps there's someone over there who would be willing to explain karma yoga to you.

Or perhaps you will do the usual and explain it all away as something added by "orthodoxy" -- all without a shred of evidence of course. :sarcastic

And now, it's time to return to our regularly-scheduled navel-gazing...

 

[Mercy Not Sacrifice]

Yes, it is sick, absurd and disgusting. Now, since you don't seem to see a problem with LogDog's premise, maybe you could explain to me how this one Church's sick, absurd and disgusting actions should make me be ashamed to be a Christian. I'm genuinely curious.

Erm, I never said that I didn't have a problem with the OP. I specifically said that it didn't come out right. (go back, reread my post)

Seeing that you're Mormon, though, and a distinctly different flavor of Christian than fundamentalists are, I think you can pretty safely play the Get Out of Jail Free card here. Fundamentalists, on the other hand, are going to have a lot tougher time explaining this away, as this act was done in God's name.

CAN WE PLEASE ALL JUST GET ALONG?

I am sorry for yelling. If we are ever going to have freedom of religion, everyone is going to have to exercise a little more tolerance for each other.

Here is the deal, if we don't protect the disgusting among us, all of us are in danger of being told what to do think and act.

Myself, I would have preached the funeral. Every church has the right to not have a service as well.

People are flawed. Everyone of us has flaws, opinions and yes, prejudices. If you think you do not have a flaw, that in it's self is a flaw.

No matter how messed up that was to cancel the services, we all need to understand that we cannot tell other folks what to do when it comes to religious beliefs.

I believe this thread is just as distasteful as the actions it rails against.

Let's all get out of the mud and treat each other like the deceased should have been treated.

If the overwhelming majority of Christians would learn to actually follow the second most important commandment in the entire Bible, discussions such as these would have no merit to exist.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I just saw the OP today -- how awful!

Next time I see a Christian I'll kick him in the pants for this!

 

[Azakel]

I just saw the OP today -- how awful!

Next time I see a Christian I'll kick him in the pants for this!

And that's way Angellous is your daddy(well every one else has said it and this felt like the right time and I wanted to do it for once).

 

[logician]

Christians have killed and tortured millions over the last 2 millinea, a little intolerance from them is not unexpected.

 

[Doktormartini]

If they weren't proud to be a Christian then they probably wouldn't be one!

 

[Azakel]

Christians have killed and tortured millions over the last 2 millinea, a little intolerance from them is not unexpected.

But you know that other religions and culture have done this so I really don't see how it can be used.