345 replies to this topic

[shadowhawk]

"God told the Jews to kill their enemies"

This is whitewashing. In the story, God tells the Jews to 'kill their enemies' AND tells the Jews to kill the babies (which they then do)

Again, atheists have the common sense to not honor Pol Pot, Stalin, and Hitler. Christians teach their children that Samuel was a holy spokesperson for God.
Your criticism of atheism might have legs if the authors of those atrocities were currently honored and admired. They're not, though. In fact, you'll find that Pol Pot, Stalin, and Hitler are condemned, and their followers are also condemned for following them. This, again, is not done regarding Samuel.

Number of atrocities doesn't matter. Any atrocity is enough to condemn a moral philosophy. What do you want us to condemn? Atheism without a robust ethical system? DONE! Of course! I condemn any viewpoint without a robust ethical stance. Like atheism?


edit: "Give atheists a pass on their democide"? What kind of bigoted bullshit is this? Every imminst atheist condemns those democides. We didn't perform the actions, we didn't authorise them, we didn't even justify them. Putting the moral sin of these democides on 'atheists' is as nonsensical as people blaming modern Christians for the Inquisition. There's just no train of moral culpability.

Again, same old stuff. Lets advance the subject and maybe we can answer some of your issues.

What is your view of war? How about World War Two? The numbers of people and children killed in this war far exceed anything in the Bible but do you think there is any justification for war, any war? Since you expect me to engage in the discussion, of war, you should also. By the way, I still do not give Atheists a pass on their Democide.

You speak for all Atheists on ImmInst? I didn't know that!

[JonesGuy]

Obviously there can be justifications for war: expedience, greed, ignorance, laziness, fear, self-defense, defense of others, and (importantly) the ability to generate survivorship bias.
It's not too dissimilar from throwing a punch in a bar, except in the scale of the consequences.

I didn't realise it was a serious question that was important to faith. Any successful society is going to have a system by which inter-society violence can be justified and rationalised (unless they live in the most benign of environments). Heck, people will create justifications post-hoc for previous violence, if only to reduce dissonance or to create a moral fable.

No, I don't speak for all atheists, or even all imminst atheists, on all matters. But when it comes to 'mass government-sanctioned killings', I'm confident that I can speak in such terms. Heck, I'm confident enough to speak for you on such matters!

[AdamSummerfield]

Again, atheists have the common sense to not honor Pol Pot, Stalin, and Hitler.

Hitler was not an atheist.

[N.T.M.]

Again, atheists have the common sense to not honor Pol Pot, Stalin, and Hitler.

Hitler was not an atheist.

He certainly wasn't. I actually recently read about that.

[chrwe]

Hitler, as far as I know, had a very convoluted sort of faith. He was just a nutcase in all respects.

Shadowhawk, I respect you and your opinion. I also appreciate how hard you defend Christian faith. Truly, I envy you and others like you a bit for living in a world that makes sense (contrary to me who believes that any sense in this world will have to be created by myself).

But still, the number of murders does not strengthen any philosophical cause. It is simply an argument that goes nowhere.

Are we warlike because we are warlike? Yes. Look at chimpanzees. They are warlike. Most primates are, those who are most like us certainly are. A strong aggression seems to have been an evolutionary advantage - actually, from a pure survivalist point of view, it`s easy to see how. Only in the very latest stage of our brain evolution, we have developed a society where it is more beneficial to everyone to have a society that refrains from killing for advantage. This doesnt mean it is not still a part of human makeup. I do have the hope that it will be stamped out in time (epigenetics etc etc).

What interests me more is why some people (regardless of philosophy) are not warlike and actually very philantrophist, and most are not. What is the difference in these people? Not every case can be explained by social factors in the upbringing. It`s a puzzler. I like this kind of puzzler .

God exists in a way, just like John said: "We have never seen God. As we love each other, so God exists in us and his love only exists in us". This is so unversal that it may appeal to atheists too, it certainly makes sense to me (agnostic).

Oh, and the old testament is clearly full of atrocities. Even as a small child, I recoiled from the story of the egyptian baby-slaughter and the story of the condoned rape of the two daughters and many other stories. Even at age 6-7, I already rejected THAT God who is clearly so much more cruel than I.

[AdamSummerfield]

I also appreciate how hard you defend Christian faith.

I don't. I think Shadowhawk needs to read this Twelve Virtues of Rationality.

[chrwe]

.

Edited by chrwe, 14 June 2010 - 12:30 PM.

[JonesGuy]

I don't care if Hitler was an atheist or not. Being an atheist is such a minor tenet of someone's personality: it's hardly a defining feature. It doesn't matter if Hitler lacked a belief in God. What he lacked was a decent moral foundation, and so did every one who followed him.

My point about including Hitler is that a modern person who venerates Hitler is probably committing a moral error. If they were teaching their children to venerate Hitler, it would be even worse. So, few people do. And of the people who do, many of them try to whitewash the Holocaust.

By contrast, Christians teach their children that Samuel was worthy of respect, that he was a holy man of god. And they don't even whitewash Samuel's crimes! Well, except that they might: by claiming Samuel commanded the deaths of their enemies, but fail to mention the babies.

[DukeNukem]

I don't care if Hitler was an atheist or not. Being an atheist is such a minor tenet of someone's personality: it's hardly a defining feature. It doesn't matter if Hitler lacked a belief in God. What he lacked was a decent moral foundation, and so did every one who followed him.

My point about including Hitler is that a modern person who venerates Hitler is probably committing a moral error. If they were teaching their children to venerate Hitler, it would be even worse. So, few people do. And of the people who do, many of them try to whitewash the Holocaust.

By contrast, Christians teach their children that Samuel was worthy of respect, that he was a holy man of god. And they don't even whitewash Samuel's crimes! Well, except that they might: by claiming Samuel commanded the deaths of their enemies, but fail to mention the babies.

We should ALL condemn unwarranted killing of innocent people and children. This is why I condemn God himself, the original mass-murderer of innocents. When Christian's worship God, they may as well worship Satan. Not a lot of difference. Both of these gods are killers, but God's killings are strangely glorified by Christians.

[JonesGuy]

I think that the moral implications of a god killing his creation are decidedly different from intra-human relations. They're just on a different scale, and they can quickly spin into concepts of moral authority as well as the problem of evil. Now, I think that Christianity fails 'the problem of evil', but it doesn't really matter.

This is why my beef is with the veneration of Abraham and Samuel. These stories describe intra-human relations. It involves Abraham being willing to kill his son. It involves soldiers listening to a priest about murdering babies. These are important moral stories, I think. These are important stories because the 'heroes' express traits that are to be despised in modern believers. Any modern believer who's willing to love a god that will order murder is, I think, failing.

[Luna]

The interesting is that there is probably no one who thinks much differently, by that I mean, most people think those wars and stuff need to change.. But the problem is that people want to have others go with their way and therefore go to war..

Luna, most people are against war. Douglas MacArthur, the great American general, said all war is immoral and the most immoral ones are the ones you don’t fight to win. Otherwise it is a total waste. Being from Israel do you feel Israel has a right to defend itself, even though Jews are the religion that gave birth to Christianity and to a lesser degree Islam? Should Israel just give up? Is that the moral thing to do?

I don't think it is related at all, considering the fact that I am not religious and many other people in Israel aren't either.

I think that even if we were religious it was still not related, people are killing people isn't justified because they are "related" somehow.

I am against people killing Israelis and I am also against Israelis killing others. That is my view on this.

If you want to go a bit more in depth, then, of course Israel isn't going to just stand and let people kill its citizens. But sometimes Israel over-reacts way too much, a thing which I am not in favor of.

[shadowhawk]

I also appreciate how hard you defend Christian faith.

I don't. I think Shadowhawk needs to read this Twelve Virtues of Rationality.

I read the Twelve Virtues. What is your point?

[shadowhawk]

Hitler, as far as I know, had a very convoluted sort of faith. He was just a nutcase in all respects.

This is right. I never accused him of being an Atheist unlike those who have said he was a Christian. This is like accusing him of being a Jew. No one wants Hitler as an ally.
http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/797/was-hitler-part-jewish

The truth, (and I don’t want to spend much time on it) Hitler killed six million Jews (or some other large number) and also many millions of Christians, perhaps more than Jews. He killed all kinds o others as well.
http://www.amazon.co...ntt_at_ep_dpi_1

In fact Hitler planned on killing many more Christians after he liquidated the Jews.
http://www.papillons...ce.com/endC.htm
http://org.law.rutge.../nurinst1.shtml

Shadowhawk, I respect you and your opinion. I also appreciate how hard you defend Christian faith. Truly, I envy you and others like you a bit for living in a world that makes sense (contrary to me who believes that any sense in this world will have to be created by myself).

1. If God does not exist, then the universe is without purpose.

2. If the universe is without purpose, then objective moral values do not exist.

3. Therefore, if God does not exist, then objective moral values do not exist.

Good luck in making sense out of it. I was raised an Atheist and became a Christian later. For awhile I was the only Christian in my family. I had a hard time finding any basis for morality or making sense of anything.

But still, the number of murders does not strengthen any philosophical cause. It is simply an argument that goes nowhere.

Are we warlike because we are warlike? Yes. Look at chimpanzees. They are warlike. Most primates are, those who are most like us certainly are. A strong aggression seems to have been an evolutionary advantage - actually, from a pure survivalist point of view, it`s easy to see how. Only in the very latest stage of our brain evolution, we have developed a society where it is more beneficial to everyone to have a society that refrains from killing for advantage. This doesnt mean it is not still a part of human makeup. I do have the hope that it will be stamped out in time (epigenetics etc etc).

I agree with you.

What interests me more is why some people (regardless of philosophy) are not warlike and actually very philantrophist, and most are not. What is the difference in these people? Not every case can be explained by social factors in the upbringing. It`s a puzzler. I like this kind of puzzler smile.gif.

God exists in a way, just like John said: "We have never seen God. As we love each other, so God exists in us and his love only exists in us". This is so unversal that it may appeal to atheists too, it certainly makes sense to me (agnostic).

Interesting.

Oh, and the old testament is clearly full of atrocities. Even as a small child, I recoiled from the story of the egyptian baby-slaughter and the story of the condoned rape of the two daughters and many other stories. Even at age 6-7, I already rejected THAT God who is clearly so much more cruel than I.

I may post something on this subject which deals with the problem of evil.

Thanks

[shadowhawk]

The interesting is that there is probably no one who thinks much differently, by that I mean, most people think those wars and stuff need to change.. But the problem is that people want to have others go with their way and therefore go to war..

Luna, most people are against war. Douglas MacArthur, the great American general, said all war is immoral and the most immoral ones are the ones you don't fight to win. Otherwise it is a total waste. Being from Israel do you feel Israel has a right to defend itself, even though Jews are the religion that gave birth to Christianity and to a lesser degree Islam? Should Israel just give up? Is that the moral thing to do?

I don't think it is related at all, considering the fact that I am not religious and many other people in Israel aren't either.

I think that even if we were religious it was still not related, people are killing people isn't justified because they are "related" somehow.

I am against people killing Israelis and I am also against Israelis killing others. That is my view on this.

If you want to go a bit more in depth, then, of course Israel isn't going to just stand and let people kill its citizens. But sometimes Israel over-reacts way too much, a thing which I am not in favor of.

I knew you are not religious. I am married to a non religious Jew. All my relatives on her side are Jewish, many non religious. I am more pro Israel than many of them so I am aware of anti Israel Jews.

If I understand your answer you would not protect yourself if attacked? You would protect yourself if attacked but not as hard as Israel has? Religious people have to answer these same issues and that is why it is related. Is there anything such as a just war and are you right to fight it?

[JonesGuy]

Calling something expedient or even necessary is not the same as calling it 'good'.

Needing to go to war, without having given complete effort for peace, is a sign of failure. It's no more honorable to kill in a war that you didn't try (enough) to prevent than it is to do anything else necessary to survive.

Edited by JonesGuy, 14 June 2010 - 08:28 PM.

[shadowhawk]

Obviously there can be justifications for war: expedience, greed, ignorance, laziness, fear, self-defense, defense of others, and (importantly) the ability to generate survivorship bias.
It's not too dissimilar from throwing a punch in a bar, except in the scale of the consequences. Kind of like a fire cracker and an atom bomb?

I didn't realise it was a serious question that was important to faith. Any successful society is going to have a system by which inter-society violence can be justified and rationalised (unless they live in the most benign of environments). Heck, people will create justifications post-hoc for previous violence, if only to reduce dissonance or to create a moral fable.

No, I don't speak for all atheists, or even all imminst atheists, on all matters. But when it comes to 'mass government-sanctioned killings', I'm confident that I can speak in such terms. Heck, I'm confident enough to speak for you on such matters!

If there can be justification for war, as you say, which war? You seem to be qualifying them as made up justifications and not real just wars. I asked you about WW II. I also gave you a list of many of the main killings beside wars. Were any of those non war killings Justified? Give me a couple of examples of a just war or are you just making it up post-hoc, a moral fable? .

Correct, you don’t speak for Atheists nor do you speak for me.

[shadowhawk]

I don't care if Hitler was an atheist or not. Being an atheist is such a minor tenet of someone's personality: it's hardly a defining feature. It doesn't matter if Hitler lacked a belief in God. What he lacked was a decent moral foundation, and so did every one who followed him.

My point about including Hitler is that a modern person who venerates Hitler is probably committing a moral error. If they were teaching their children to venerate Hitler, it would be even worse. So, few people do. And of the people who do, many of them try to whitewash the Holocaust.

By contrast, Christians teach their children that Samuel was worthy of respect, that he was a holy man of god. And they don't even whitewash Samuel's crimes! Well, except that they might: by claiming Samuel commanded the deaths of their enemies, but fail to mention the babies.

We should ALL condemn unwarranted killing of innocent people and children. This is why I condemn God himself, the original mass-murderer of innocents. When Christian's worship God, they may as well worship Satan. Not a lot of difference. Both of these gods are killers, but God's killings are strangely glorified by Christians.

Good, we finally agree. I also condemn unwarranted killing of innocent people of any age. Every human since the beginning of time has died. We need some way to get more life than a miserable hundred years or so. What you don't address is, are there any warranted killings such as in W.W.II? Perhaps some non war killing is warranted?

Edited by shadowhawk, 15 June 2010 - 12:47 AM.

[Cameron]

BUT, the main difference is that I don't engage in apologetics for a religious history that once demanded human sacrifice. It doesn't matter if you kill babies. You honor people who do (Samuel), people who were willing to commit human sacrifice (Abraham), and a God that's ordered human sacrifice.

so true.

atheists even though far more people were killed by Atheists than all those in the I, II World Wars.

Really now? You know that a leader does not directly kill people. There are generals and there are countless soldiers. And in most places the vast majority of individuals are believers, atheist tend to be few in number. In the end if an Atheist leader orders 100 religious individuals to kill, the ones pulling the trigger are the ones doing the killing.

The real Atheist killer numbers do not include the wars numbers. The Atheists killed far more than both World Wars. This is no Issue?

Atheism does not involve a philosophy that justifies war and genocide, it is simply lack of belief, particularly unjustified beliefs. If it happens that a cook was the greatest killer in history, does that mean cooking is inherently evil? that there's something morally wrong with cooks? Obviously not, you can't say that because someone had a particular unrelated belief, was of a particular race, or a had a certain level of intelligence, their actions can be tied to any such thing. CORRELATION DOES NOT IMPLY CAUSATION.

And once again, just like many have said to pedophile priests saying others do the same, the wrongs of others do not justify your wrongs or excuse them. A genocidal deity is not excused from moral reprimand, just because someone else did the same or a worse crime. And it is obvious that defending the genocidal deity and its actions, entails defending and justifying the atrocities themselves.

[eternaltraveler]

3. Therefore, if God does not exist, then objective moral values do not exist.

that's right.

So?

Why are objective moral values important?

Edited by eternaltraveler, 15 June 2010 - 04:57 AM.

[AdamSummerfield]

I also appreciate how hard you defend Christian faith.

I don't. I think Shadowhawk needs to read this Twelve Virtues of Rationality.

I read the Twelve Virtues. What is your point?

The fourth virtue, I think, applies to you.

The fourth virtue is evenness. One who wishes to believe says, “Does the evidence permit me to believe?” One who wishes to disbelieve asks, “Does the evidence force me to believe?” Beware lest you place huge burdens of proof only on propositions you dislike, and then defend yourself by saying: “But it is good to be skeptical.” If you attend only to favorable evidence, picking and choosing from your gathered data, then the more data you gather, the less you know. If you are selective about which arguments you inspect for flaws, or how hard you inspect for flaws, then every flaw you learn how to detect makes you that much stupider. If you first write at the bottom of a sheet of paper, “And therefore, the sky is green!”, it does not matter what arguments you write above it afterward; the conclusion is already written, and it is already correct or already wrong. To be clever in argument is not rationality but rationalization. Intelligence, to be useful, must be used for something other than defeating itself. Listen to hypotheses as they plead their cases before you, but remember that you are not a hypothesis, you are the judge. Therefore do not seek to argue for one side or another, for if you knew your destination, you would already be there.

[JonesGuy]

Shadowhawk, it's impossible to call any war 'Just' without perfect knowledge. The best you can do is look back and say "ehn, I don't know if I could have done better" or look forward and say "I can't think of any other option".

[JonesGuy]

As well, WWII was complex to the point of bafflement. There're too many components to stereotype it.

[Ben]

I don't care if Hitler was an atheist or not. Being an atheist is such a minor tenet of someone's personality: it's hardly a defining feature. It doesn't matter if Hitler lacked a belief in God. What he lacked was a decent moral foundation, and so did every one who followed him.

My point about including Hitler is that a modern person who venerates Hitler is probably committing a moral error. If they were teaching their children to venerate Hitler, it would be even worse. So, few people do. And of the people who do, many of them try to whitewash the Holocaust.

By contrast, Christians teach their children that Samuel was worthy of respect, that he was a holy man of god. And they don't even whitewash Samuel's crimes! Well, except that they might: by claiming Samuel commanded the deaths of their enemies, but fail to mention the babies.

We should ALL condemn unwarranted killing of innocent people and children. This is why I condemn God himself, the original mass-murderer of innocents. When Christian's worship God, they may as well worship Satan. Not a lot of difference. Both of these gods are killers, but God's killings are strangely glorified by Christians.

Any construct can be twisted to justify any means. Blaming the construct itself is juvenile and short-sighted and ignores what good it can do. With the greatest respect, this particular post speaks a lot about your general level of intelligence.

[shadowhawk]

I also appreciate how hard you defend Christian faith.

I don't. I think Shadowhawk needs to read this Twelve Virtues of Rationality.

I read the Twelve Virtues. What is your point?

The fourth virtue, I think, applies to you.

The fourth virtue is evenness. One who wishes to believe says, "Does the evidence permit me to believe?" One who wishes to disbelieve asks, "Does the evidence force me to believe?" Beware lest you place huge burdens of proof only on propositions you dislike, and then defend yourself by saying: "But it is good to be skeptical." If you attend only to favorable evidence, picking and choosing from your gathered data, then the more data you gather, the less you know. If you are selective about which arguments you inspect for flaws, or how hard you inspect for flaws, then every flaw you learn how to detect makes you that much stupider. If you first write at the bottom of a sheet of paper, "And therefore, the sky is green!", it does not matter what arguments you write above it afterward; the conclusion is already written, and it is already correct or already wrong. To be clever in argument is not rationality but rationalization. Intelligence, to be useful, must be used for something other than defeating itself. Listen to hypotheses as they plead their cases before you, but remember that you are not a hypothesis, you are the judge. Therefore do not seek to argue for one side or another, for if you knew your destination, you would already be there.

Does the evidence permit me to believe? The author then changes the question for the one who wishes to not believe to, “Does the evidence force me to believe.” He should have asked, “Does the evidence permit me to not believe.?” He didn’t and the whole point is a setup of the position of the one who believes. No one is trying to force anyone to believe. How come the believer is pickling and choosing evidence but the unbeliever isn’t? And this is called rational? The conclusion indeed, is already written. Don’t argue one side or another. like the author has done, or your destination will be sure.

Now where have I done anything like this?

[chris w]

When Christian's worship God, they may as well worship Satan. Not a lot of difference. Both of these gods are killers, but God's killings are strangely glorified by Christians.

Even better, in Bible Satan doesn't really do violent stuff to humans ( just deceiving ), Yahve is the Commander in Chief, in the Book of Job it's God who is Satan's boss and accepts his proposal to put Job's faith to trial.

Edited by chris w, 15 June 2010 - 06:03 PM.

[JonesGuy]

That's not completely true. There's a demonically possessed man that injures himself and terrifies people (the demons are cast into pigs by Jesus)

[shadowhawk]

[quote name='Cameron' date='Jun 14 2010, 08:10 PM' post='413525']


Really now? You know that a leader does not directly kill people. There are generals and there are countless soldiers. And in most places the vast majority of individuals are believers, atheist tend to be few in number. In the end if an Atheist leader orders 100 religious individuals to kill, the ones pulling the trigger are the ones doing the killing.

Hitler, Stalin Mao, etc. did not directly kill hundreds of millions. Atheism is excused for all the killings and it was really religious believers who did the killings!

QUOTE
The real Atheist killer numbers do not include the wars numbers. The Atheists killed far more than both World Wars. This is no Issue?

Atheism does not involve a philosophy that justifies war and genocide, it is simply lack of belief, particularly unjustified beliefs. If it happens that a cook was the greatest killer in history, does that mean cooking is inherently evil? that there's something morally wrong with cooks? Obviously not, you can't say that because someone had a particular unrelated belief, was of a particular race, or a had a certain level of intelligence, their actions can be tied to any such thing. CORRELATION DOES NOT IMPLY CAUSATION.

You must disagree with Duke who is fond of quoting polls showing religious people have lower intelligence than non religious. Christians teach their children! Many Atheist writers have written tons of stuff regarding war and genocide. Correlation can imply causation.

And once again, just like many have said to pedophile priests saying others do the same, the wrongs of others do not justify your wrongs or excuse them. A genocidal deity is not excused from moral reprimand, just because someone else did the same or a worse crime. And it is obvious that defending the genocidal deity and its actions, entails defending and justifying the atrocities themselves.

Nonsense. For example I don't defend pedophiles of any kind and this includes Atheists who molest children. (There is nothing in Atheism that supports child molestation) Atheists are therefore not culpable. But, those Christians, they are!

Catholic priests are no more likely to molest than any other demographic.

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/browse_thread/thread/e287aba22f2f8e67/1731be258375a620?lnk=raot&pli=1

http://en.wikipedia....se#Demographics
Demographics

Offenders are more likely to be relatives or acquaintances of their victim than strangers. A 2006–2007 Idaho study of 430 cases found that 82% of juvenile sex offenders were known to the victims (acquaintances 46% or relatives 36%).

More offenders are male than female, though the percentage varies between studies. The percentage of incidents of sexual abuse by female perpetrators that come to the attention of the legal system is usually reported to be between 1% and 4%. Studies of sexual misconduct in US schools with female offenders have shown mixed results with rates between 4% to 43% of female offenders.[98] Maletzky (1993) found that, of his sample of 4,402 convicted pedophilic offenders, 0.4% were female. Another study of a non-clinical population found that, among those in the their sample that had been molested, as much as a third were molested by women.

In summary:
CHILD MOLESTERS - WHO ARE THEY?

It is not enough to warn a child to stay away from strangers. The majority of children are molested by those they know and trust - but may not be known by other family members. We also have a lesser known but growing category of molesters: children who perpetrate sexual crimes upon children younger than themselves.

# The U.S. Department of Justice reported four million child molesters reside in this country.
# Almost half of all sex offenders are under 18.
# Ten years ago we had twenty-two rehabilitation programs for juvenile sex offenders - we now have 755.
# New York rape arrests of thirteen year old males increased 200% between 1986 and 1988.
# 57% of child molesters were molested themselves as children.
# A typical molester will abuse between 30 to 60 children before they are arrested - as many as 380 during their lifetime.

The current threat and what lies ahead of us as a nation is staggering. We owe it to our children to remember that the next generation of molesters is coming out of this generation, and to act accordingly.

CHARACTERISTICS OF MOLESTERS

# Can have adult sex partners, but children are primary sex object.
# Have lifestyles which give them easy access to children.
# Target specific gender, age, hair and eye color.
# Use threats to manipulate and control victims - or bribe them with gifts, love or promises to lure victims into their confidence before victimization takes place.
# May commit first offense when in teens.
# Continue behavior even after conviction and treatment.
# Are mostly males, but females also molest.
# May video or photograph sexual activity with children to exchange with other molesters and/or shame child into not telling anyone of the abuse.
# Some molesters network with pornographers and their pictures are used for commercial child pornography. Pictures are also traded with others interested in sex with children and become part of the cottage child pornography industry.

[eternaltraveler]

Catholic priests are no more likely to molest than any other demographic.

that wasn't remotely the issue. The issue is that it was church policy to cover up the transgressions of it's priests.

[shadowhawk]

Catholic priests are no more likely to molest than any other demographic.

that wasn't remotely the issue. The issue is that it was church policy to cover up the transgressions of it's priests.

Not being a Catholic I don't think they did a good job of it either. At the same time Google "Teachers who molest." The local schools around where I live have had many scandals where teachers have molested children. Look up Child abusers to find out how many live right down the street from you. The issue is not being dealt with well by anyone. But the post was someone beside you so Ill save my response for them.

[shadowhawk]

[quote name='eternaltraveler' date='Jun 15 2010, 12:25 PM' post='413668']
Shadowhawk, it's impossible to call any war 'Just' without perfect knowledge. The best you can do is look back and say "ehn, I don't know if I could have done better" or look forward and say "I can't think of any other option".

As well, WWII was complex to the point of bafflement. There're too many components to stereotype it.

If it is impossible for you to call any war just without "perfect knowledge," then you must feel you have perfect knowledge when it comes to war in the Pentateuch. (first 5 books of Bible) Will you look back with your perfect knowledge and say, “I know I could have done better than God?” If I believed as you aparantly do, that you know better when it comes to God, maybe I would believe you rather than God. I don’t.

The events in the old testament took place many thousands of years ago and though very small when compared to WWII it was also complex. This includes the death of children and others who are always part of war. I noticed you didn’t even mention the atheist killings. I am going to go ahead and post a writing bu Craig on those old testament events now that you have nothing to say about war.