Yahweh is immoral

[metis]

Japan was preparing the mainland for a US invasion. There is video of elementary school children practicing daily at school with bamboo poles sharpened at the end. Every citizen was going to fight. They expected up to 1 million US casualties and a brutal street fight for every building. But with more civilians than troops. The casualties on the Japan side would have been unbelievable. We may have had to continue dropping conventional bombs on every city because they did not want to surrender. The Tokyo bombings killed over 120 thousand Japanese because the entire city was on fire. If this continued that would have played out in every city causing millions more casualties and at least 1 million US soldiers.

The above is factually incorrect.

When the atomic bombs were dropped, Japan was in no position to invade anyone as their navy was seriously crippled and they were running out of oil.

Secondly, we do not know how long it would take for them to give up, thus we simply cannot assume much of anything along this line of thinking.

Thirdly, I believe the firebombing of Tokyo and some other cities there and in Germany was patently immoral.

Fourthly, the Japanese were in no position to cause much more harm to American troops or ships because all we had to do was to have a complete embargo of the islands as they were already that weak.

And fifth, we were in a position to let them make the decision as to how they were going to lose, thus we would not be taking actions that killed thousands of innocent civilians and also caused mutations that went on for generations.

There's a lot more I can get into if you're interested but I'll stop here.

 

[metis]

Two quick items to add to the above:

When a senior in high school whereas we met in caves back then, I did a report on the dropping of the atomic bombs, especially using two books: John Hersey's "Hiroshima" and President Truman's Memoirs, and what I found was shocking. I can elaborate if you wish.

Back when in my early 30's, a friend of mine, who was a Baptist deacon [SBC], asked me after I beat him in racquetball , that if I was president and was just informed that we were under a full nuclear attack whether I would respond with launching a nuclear retaliation, and I said I probably would. He slammed his fist on a changing-room locker and said "How could you that as a Christian whereas millions of innocent lives would die because of that response?". I thought about it that day, went and visited him the next day, and said "You're right-- I couldn't do that". [quotes are approximate] I still feel that same way.

Thus, this is why I've decided not to run for president in 2024.

 

[joelr]

\
Here you have stated the "why" it was acceptable. And yet you don't ask why God did what He did (as horrible as both situations were). One could even have the viewpoint that it is hypocritical to say "It was ok for us to do it but not for God". (just a perspective)

I did not state any "why" it is acceptable for a fictional character to order death to all living things in 6 cities? Never mind that the reason is they practiced freedom of religion.
I never said anything to the liking of "It was ok for us to do it but not for God"????
Why do you think I said that????

God DID NOT say to fight your enemies until they surrender then take their weapons and help them feed their starving and re-build their economy? Or make any attempt at any humane law whatsoever?
Everyone knows we need to fight when a nation attacks us. Everyone knows there are humane ways to treat a nation after you have defeated them. Even worse is it's just because one God didn't like the religions that 6 entire cities worshipped. Even though he's supposed to be a God who could just show them he's actually powerful and then they would convert. Nope, instead you are to kill all living things in 6 cities?

There is no perspective where 6 nations have surrendered, are at your mercy, and you walk around the city sticking swords in babies, women, children, men and cattle and you are not a bunch of evil Nazi thugs.

As far as plunder... that is also a perspective. One could look at the same situation and say "The women and children were saved so that they wouldn't starve to death and/or die from sickness and disease that usually follow after a war".

Oh they were saved? By being owned for life and labeled plunder? You posted the Japanese plunder as if it was some great moral horror. It was. But now, when the religion you follow says to do the same you think this was saving them? So you also think the Japanese plunder was justified? Wow.

Of course men wrote these laws and they were sketchy but times were tough. Pretty sure if an actual deity was giving laws about post-war behavior it would come up with some humane solutions that would allow the well being of all involved to have some hope of a better life.
But no, of these children and women you "take unto thyself". If that's not bad enough, "thou shalt eat the spoil of thine enemies,"........."you may take as plunder", not captives, not slaves.......PLUNDER.."you shall use the spoil of your enemies that the LORD your God gives you".. ok that's disgusting. Absolutely disgusting. Imagine being a man and the Israelites are defeating your city and you have a bunch of young daughters.........


But the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even all the spoil thereof, shalt thou take unto thyself; and thou shalt eat the spoil of thine enemies, which the LORD thy God hath given thee.
But the women, children, livestock, and whatever else is in the city—all its spoil—you may take as plunder, and you shall use the spoil of your enemies that the LORD your God gives you.

 

[joelr]

The above is factually incorrect.

When the atomic bombs were dropped, Japan was in no position to invade anyone as their navy was seriously crippled and they were running out of oil.

Secondly, we do not know how long it would take for them to give up, thus we simply cannot assume much of anything along this line of thinking.

Thirdly, I believe the firebombing of Tokyo and some other cities there and in Germany was patently immoral.

Fourthly, the Japanese were in no position to cause much more harm to American troops or ships because all we had to do was to have a complete embargo of the islands as they were already that weak.

And fifth, we were in a position to let them make the decision as to how they were going to lose, thus we would not be taking actions that killed thousands of innocent civilians and also caused mutations that went on for generations.

There's a lot more I can get into if you're interested but I'll stop here.

They had no intention of giving up. This is now known. Just the previous April was Okinawa which was a brutal battle for both sides. They were not going to give up and the mainland invasion was next. We would lose at least 500 million US troops and it would have been fighting civilians, women and children. There were not many good options. We also could not begin rebuilding efforts until a surrender happened.

 

[metis]

They had no intention of giving up.

At that time, true. However, with a blockade, it would only be a matter of time.

They were not going to give up and the mainland invasion was next.

No invasion would have been necessary in all likelihood if we had let them know that a negotiated peace was possible and that we would help them through transitions.

We would lose at least 500 million US troops and it would have been fighting civilians, women and children

Nope. It possibly could have ended much like the Brits and Indians handled the ending of the Raj.

We also could not begin rebuilding efforts until a surrender happened.

Which would be conditional.

Again, us killing thousands of civilians would not have been necessary.

 

[ppp]

At that time, true. However, with a blockade, it would only be a matter of time.

No invasion would have been necessary in all likelihood if we had let them know that a negotiated peace was possible and that we would help them through transitions.

Nope. It possibly could have ended much like the Brits and Indians handled the ending of the Raj.

Which would be conditional.

Again, us killing thousands of civilians would not have been necessary.

And if we absolutely positively had to use the bomb for some reason, we could have demonstrated it on an island without any people on it.

 

[metis]

And if we absolutely positively had to use the bomb for some reason, we could have demonstrated it on an island without any people on it.

Good point, imo.

 

[Kenny]

I did not state any "why" it is acceptable for a fictional character to order death to all living things in 6 cities? Never mind that the reason is they practiced freedom of religion.
I never said anything to the liking of "It was ok for us to do it but not for God"????
Why do you think I said that????

God DID NOT say to fight your enemies until they surrender then take their weapons and help them feed their starving and re-build their economy? Or make any attempt at any humane law whatsoever?
Everyone knows we need to fight when a nation attacks us. Everyone knows there are humane ways to treat a nation after you have defeated them. Even worse is it's just because one God didn't like the religions that 6 entire cities worshipped. Even though he's supposed to be a God who could just show them he's actually powerful and then they would convert. Nope, instead you are to kill all living things in 6 cities?

There is no perspective where 6 nations have surrendered, are at your mercy, and you walk around the city sticking swords in babies, women, children, men and cattle and you are not a bunch of evil Nazi thugs.




Oh they were saved? By being owned for life and labeled plunder? You posted the Japanese plunder as if it was some great moral horror. It was. But now, when the religion you follow says to do the same you think this was saving them? So you also think the Japanese plunder was justified? Wow.

Of course men wrote these laws and they were sketchy but times were tough. Pretty sure if an actual deity was giving laws about post-war behavior it would come up with some humane solutions that would allow the well being of all involved to have some hope of a better life.
But no, of these children and women you "take unto thyself". If that's not bad enough, "thou shalt eat the spoil of thine enemies,"........."you may take as plunder", not captives, not slaves.......PLUNDER.."you shall use the spoil of your enemies that the LORD your God gives you".. ok that's disgusting. Absolutely disgusting. Imagine being a man and the Israelites are defeating your city and you have a bunch of young daughters.........


But the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even all the spoil thereof, shalt thou take unto thyself; and thou shalt eat the spoil of thine enemies, which the LORD thy God hath given thee.
But the women, children, livestock, and whatever else is in the city—all its spoil—you may take as plunder, and you shall use the spoil of your enemies that the LORD your God gives you.

OK... so you are hung up on one word and suggest they leave them all to die... got it. Not "why" but simply "the word".

What word would you have preferred to use?

 

[ppp]

OK... so you are hung up on one word and suggest they leave them all to die... got it. Not "why" but simply "the word".

What word would you have preferred to use?

I am constantly not amused by all of the people claims some sort of superior morality while they bend over backwards to excuse genocide.

 

[Kenny]

I am constantly not amused by all of the people claims some sort of superior morality while they bend over backwards to excuse genocide.

I think that swords cuts both ways. Why is that those who claim superior morality are OK with atomic bombs over Japan or not stopping the Holocaust. Over-used statements.

 

[ppp]

I think that swords cuts both ways. Why is that those who claim superior morality are OK with atomic bombs over Japan or not stopping the Holocaust. Over-used statements.

I am sure that you know that you are just engaging in a lazy tu quoque fallacy, rendering your post just a big pointless whine. But, I am feeling generous, so let's play.

Let's pretend that I am perfectly OK with atomic bombs over Japan and not stopping the Holocaust. Sounds more like God, but for the sake of my own amusement and your inept dodging, let us just pretend that it is me who holds these positions?.

Bwa ha ha ha ha ha ha!
"Mine is an evil laugh" --Hoban Washburne

So the big question is:
How does my immoral endorsement of genocide in WWII excuse a Christian's immoral endorsement of genocide in Exodus?

 

[Kenny]

I am sure that you know that you are just engaging in a lazy tu quoque fallacy, rendering your post just a big pointless whine. But, I am feeling generous, so let's play.

It just that you begged for the answer. So I thought, "I feel generous, so let's play".

Let's pretend that I am perfectly OK with atomic bombs over Japan and not stopping the Holocaust. Sounds more like God, but for the sake of my own amusement and your inept dodging, let us just pretend that it is me who holds these positions?.

Bwa ha ha ha ha ha ha!
"Mine is an evil laugh" --Hoban Washburne

Why not?

So the big question is:
How does my immoral endorsement of genocide in WWII excuse a Christian's immoral endorsement of genocide in Exodus?

I will answer the question but, first a couple of questions...

1) Which one are you specifically talking about? (So I know what instance you are specifically talking about - not be so generalized)
2) Who is immoral, God or you that has no problem with the mass murder by or to the Japanese?
3) I could say that you are using a harder to find fallacy of "begging the question". But let's not go there.

 

[ppp]

I will answer the question but, first a couple of questions...

1) Which one are you specifically talking about? (So I know what instance you are specifically talking about - not be so generalized)
2) Who is immoral, God or you that has no problem with the mass murder by or to the Japanese?
3) I could say that you are using a harder to find fallacy of "begging the question". But let's not go there.

1) Looked like Joelr was talking about Deut 20::10-18. But if you feel more comfortable with the Midianites, the Amalekites, the Flood, Sodom and Gomorrah, etc, Feel free to pick one of those.
2) In this hypothetical. Both.
3) I could say that you do not know what begging the question is, but lets not go there.

 

[Kenny]

1) Looked like Joelr was talking about Deut 20::10-18. But if you feel more comfortable with the Midianites, the Amalekites, the Flood, Sodom and Gomorrah, etc, Feel free to pick one of those.

OK... Deut 20 -

2) In this hypothetical. Both.

What other option is there?

3) I could say that you do not know what begging the question is, but lets not go there.

LOL That is the most COMMON answer people use when they don't like it.

Let's pick one with the limited knowledge we have...

Canaanites - The Canaanites, as a whole culture, committed sins of idolatry, holy temple prostitution, adultery, homosexuality, incest, murder, bestiality, gang rape, and child sacrifice (see The Nature of the Canaanites’ Sin excursus on page 8).

This can be found pretty much everywhere...

Since we don't have the particulars in scriptures, I would look at it logically with the understanding of what God said,

Ezekiel 18: 23 Do I take any pleasure in the death of the wicked?declares the Lord GOD. Wouldn’t I prefer that he turn from his ways and live?

So, if I am going to find out possibility thinking, bestiality causes rampant sickness and penicillin et al hadn't been discovered yet. Eventual extinction because of sickness? Certainly a possibility.

Gang rape isn't exactly the best thing for women and children's sacrificing isn't exactly the future that one would desire and more-so if you included incest.

So... was saving women and children a blessing or are you of the persuasion to just live and let live and have the suffering continue? He would have preferred they changed but, as it is with so many people, it wasn't going to happen. (apparently).

God didn't have pleasure in it, even as we shouldn't have pleasure in dropping bombs over Germany or Japan but.... what other option?

 

[Sand Dancer]

Two quick items to add to the above:

When a senior in high school whereas we met in caves back then, I did a report on the dropping of the atomic bombs, especially using two books: John Hersey's "Hiroshima" and President Truman's Memoirs, and what I found was shocking. I can elaborate if you wish.

Back when in my early 30's, a friend of mine, who was a Baptist deacon [SBC], asked me after I beat him in racquetball , that if I was president and was just informed that we were under a full nuclear attack whether I would respond with launching a nuclear retaliation, and I said I probably would. He slammed his fist on a changing-room locker and said "How could you that as a Christian whereas millions of innocent lives would die because of that response?". I thought about it that day, went and visited him the next day, and said "You're right-- I couldn't do that". [quotes are approximate] I still feel that same way.

Thus, this is why I've decided not to run for president in 2024.

Great post! The racquetball reference makes me remember my days on the court. Miss it.

 

[metis]

God didn't have pleasure in it, even as we shouldn't have pleasure in dropping bombs over Germany or Japan but.... what other option?

Actually, there were different options available, so it's a matter of choosing those that cause the least harm to civilians. The atomic bombs and the use of fire-bombing killed multiple thousands of innocent people thus, I simply cannot see how Jesus could in any way justify either.

In Truman's own memoirs, he said that he made the decision to drop the first atomic bomb on Hiroshima as it had a relatively large population, and yet it had little strategic importance as it was not an industrial center like Nagasaki. He did so because the military wanted to see what the effect would be on a condensed population center. When I read that from "the horse's mouth", I could have fallen off my chair I was so shocked.

Sorry to be a buttinski.


Added: Here's another shocker for me: Before the test of the bomb in New Mexico, Truman said that about 30% of the research scientists in that area of study felt that it was possible that it might start an unstoppable chain reaction that could destroy our planet-- and yet they went ahead with the test anyway. BTW, there's more to that story as well.

 

[Kenny]

Actually, there were different options available, so it's a matter of choosing those that cause the least harm to civilians. The atomic bombs and the use of fire-bombing killed multiple thousands of innocent people thus, I simply cannot see how Jesus could in any way justify either.

In Truman's own memoirs, he said that he made the decision to drop the first atomic bomb on Hiroshima as it had a relatively large population, and yet it had little strategic importance as it was not an industrial center like Nagasaki. He did so because the military wanted to see what the effect would be on a condensed population center. When I read that from "the horse's mouth", I could have fallen off my chair I was so shocked.

Sorry to be a buttinski.


Added: Here's another shocker for me: Before the test of the bomb in New Mexico, Truman said that about 30% of the research scientists in that area of study felt that it was possible that it might start an unstoppable chain reaction that could destroy our planet-- and yet they went ahead with the test anyway. BTW, there's more to that story as well.

True... there were other options but the principle is what I was talking about. For men, hindsight can be 100% correct but still may only be worth a nickel or maybe less if we didn't learn from it,

In my view, God knows all the options that were available and picks the right one.

 

[GardenLady]

My argument is simple.
It is immoral to send a good person to hell for the sin of worshiping another god.

A girl is born in Pakistan into a Hindu family. Throughout her life she proves over and over again that she is the perfect archetype of a principle centered moral and just person. She has heard about other religions but practices Hindu faith becuse she was born into it.

If Yahweh is the one true God, and heaven and hell exists, then this woman's soul will be tortured in hell for all eternity?

There are those of us who take a more fliexible view. Mine is best described in the last of the Chronicles of Narnia, called "The Last Battle." In this book, there is a character called Emeth, who is a faithful devotee of the god Tash. He encounters Aslan, who says that he takes all the service done to Tash as having been done for him, "for all find what they truly seek." [This section of the book is a bit longer and more complicated than that, but that's the gist of it.]

I have zero doubt that our dear friend who was a conservative Jew and very faithful and also active in service for others is now in heaven with God, and not condemned for not being a Christian.

 

[ppp]

There are those of us who take a more fliexible view. Mine is best described in the last of the Chronicles of Narnia, called "The Last Battle." In this book, there is a character called Emeth, who is a faithful devotee of the god Tash. He encounters Aslan, who says that he takes all the service done to Tash as having been done for him, "for all find what they truly seek." [This section of the book is a bit longer and more complicated than that, but that's the gist of it.]

I have zero doubt that our dear friend who was a conservative Jew and very faithful and also active in service for others is now in heaven with God, and not condemned for not being a Christian.

How do you reconcile that position with the whole I am the way in the door. No one gets to see the big man except through me. thing?

 

[GardenLady]

How do you reconcile that position with the whole I am the way in the door. No one gets to see the big man except through me. thing?

While I know that there are those, especially evangelicals, that will disagree, my position is this: All who are saved are saved through Christ; but that does not necessarily mean that they know him.