Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

War - A necessary evil?

Page 6 of 17 [ 269 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 ... 17  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

slowmutant
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 13 Feb 2008
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,430
Location: Ontario, Canada

23 Aug 2008, 10:10 am

They drowned. Free will vs. physical ability.

Thank you, come again.



Sand
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 98
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

23 Aug 2008, 10:15 am

Sure, guns don't kill people, water does. It begins to look like I'm talking to someone with a most peculiar outlook.



corroonb
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Oct 2007
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,377
Location: Ireland

23 Aug 2008, 10:16 am

Sand wrote:
But a while back you indicated that humans are dominated by "human nature" and therefore unable to exert free will.

Incidentally, if God does not kill, I assume He used the same logic as the gun crowd in the USA when all that water killed most of the people on Earth in the flood. God didn't kill, it was the water. They just never had enough free will to swim.


I was speaking hypothetically.

I believe all humans have free will and can only be coerced if they let fear of violence coerce them.

slowmutant implied that "human nature" compelled us to violence. If that is true then god wanted us to be violent.



Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

23 Aug 2008, 11:19 am

corroonb wrote:
slowmutant implied that "human nature" compelled us to violence. If that is true then god wanted us to be violent.

False from a Christian theological standpoint, human nature is also impacted by the fall, which distorted human nature into a nature that can lead people to evil.



slowmutant
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 13 Feb 2008
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,430
Location: Ontario, Canada

23 Aug 2008, 11:19 am

Sand wrote:
Sure, guns don't kill people, water does. It begins to look like I'm talking to someone with a most peculiar outlook.


Guns, used by people, kill. Water, if it overwhelms the person, causes them to drown. The difference man invented the firearm to kill other men. Water is impersonal. One can die of thirst as well, whih is to say from extreme lack of water. I am not pro-gun, but I am in favour of water (just not to drown in).



corroonb
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Oct 2007
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,377
Location: Ireland

23 Aug 2008, 11:23 am

Awesomelyglorious wrote:
corroonb wrote:
slowmutant implied that "human nature" compelled us to violence. If that is true then god wanted us to be violent.

False from a Christian theological standpoint, human nature is also impacted by the fall, which distorted human nature into a nature that can lead people to evil.


Original Sin is nonsense. I am not responsible for the actions of my ancestors. The legal system does not punish children because of their parents. If Original Sin is accepted, God is not just.



slowmutant
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 13 Feb 2008
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,430
Location: Ontario, Canada

23 Aug 2008, 11:27 am

Original Sin refers to Genesis, to the fall of Adam and Eve. You can take it or throw it out, but don't call it nonsense. Who are you to make such a pronouncement?



corroonb
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Oct 2007
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,377
Location: Ireland

23 Aug 2008, 11:28 am

slowmutant wrote:
Original Sin refers to Genesis, to the fall of Adam and Eve. You can take it or throw it out, but don't call it nonsense. Who are you to make such a pronouncement?


Who are you not to?



Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

23 Aug 2008, 11:28 am

corroonb wrote:
Original Sin is nonsense. I am not responsible for the actions of my ancestors. The legal system does not punish children because of their parents. If Original Sin is accepted, God is not just.

Umm.... not all doctrines of original sin are based upon the notion that you are guilty for the crime of Adam, but the notion that the original sin had an impact on later generations is pretty standard Christian theology.

Also, if God is defined as just, how can anyone say he isn't? Such would be saying that he lies, or that he doesn't know what justice is or some other such thing, and if you can't take the word of a god seriously, then what can you trust?



corroonb
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Oct 2007
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,377
Location: Ireland

23 Aug 2008, 11:34 am

Awesomelyglorious wrote:
corroonb wrote:
Original Sin is nonsense. I am not responsible for the actions of my ancestors. The legal system does not punish children because of their parents. If Original Sin is accepted, God is not just.

Umm.... not all doctrines of original sin are based upon the notion that you are guilty for the crime of Adam, but the notion that the original sin had an impact on later generations is pretty standard Christian theology.

Also, if God is defined as just, how can anyone say he isn't? Such would be saying that he lies, or that he doesn't know what justice is or some other such thing, and if you can't take the word of a god seriously, then what can you trust?


Are you not an atheist?

If so why do you accept original sin?

Is it just such an arbitrary ideology that you feel the need to defend it regardless of its value?

Do you argue just for the sake of argument?



Sand
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 98
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

23 Aug 2008, 11:35 am

Since God invented water can He be entirely free of responsibility if He uses it as a weapon to kill people?
This is not meant as an insult, merely as a psychological analysis. I think you're insane. Just an unprofessional opinion of course.



slowmutant
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 13 Feb 2008
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,430
Location: Ontario, Canada

23 Aug 2008, 11:38 am

corroonb wrote:
Awesomelyglorious wrote:
corroonb wrote:
Original Sin is nonsense. I am not responsible for the actions of my ancestors. The legal system does not punish children because of their parents. If Original Sin is accepted, God is not just.

Umm.... not all doctrines of original sin are based upon the notion that you are guilty for the crime of Adam, but the notion that the original sin had an impact on later generations is pretty standard Christian theology.

Also, if God is defined as just, how can anyone say he isn't? Such would be saying that he lies, or that he doesn't know what justice is or some other such thing, and if you can't take the word of a god seriously, then what can you trust?


Are you not an atheist?

If so why do you accept original sin?

Is it just such an arbitrary ideology that you feel the need to defend it regardless of its value?

Do you argue just for the sake of argument?


Why are you not an Irish Catholic or an Anglican? Ireland is supposed to be a very religious country.



corroonb
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Oct 2007
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,377
Location: Ireland

23 Aug 2008, 11:40 am

slowmutant wrote:
corroonb wrote:
Awesomelyglorious wrote:
corroonb wrote:
Original Sin is nonsense. I am not responsible for the actions of my ancestors. The legal system does not punish children because of their parents. If Original Sin is accepted, God is not just.

Umm.... not all doctrines of original sin are based upon the notion that you are guilty for the crime of Adam, but the notion that the original sin had an impact on later generations is pretty standard Christian theology.

Also, if God is defined as just, how can anyone say he isn't? Such would be saying that he lies, or that he doesn't know what justice is or some other such thing, and if you can't take the word of a god seriously, then what can you trust?


Are you not an atheist?

If so why do you accept original sin?

Is it just such an arbitrary ideology that you feel the need to defend it regardless of its value?

Do you argue just for the sake of argument?


Why are you not an Irish Catholic or an Anglican? Ireland is supposed to be a very religious country.


I'm neither of those things because I'm neither stupid nor insane. I think for myself. I conclude that there is insufficient evidence for belief in a supernatural entity called God. I also think there is insufficient evidence for belief in aliens and unicorns.



Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

23 Aug 2008, 11:42 am

corroonb wrote:
Are you not an atheist?

If so why do you accept original sin?

Is it just such an arbitrary ideology that you feel the need to defend it regardless of its value?

Do you argue just for the sake of argument?

I *don't* accept original sin. The issue is that we were arguing Christian theology, and in that framework I do accept original sin as a proper interpretation of the doctrine.

Original sin is not an ideology, it is a Christian doctrine, and I think it is the correct doctrine within the Christian theological tradition. I don't have to say much more than that.

Do you just argue for the sake of argument? It is not as if you were staying out of the business of Christian theology, despite being agnostic. I mean, you could have easily just avoided that topic, but you didn't.



DentArthurDent
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Jul 2008
Age: 60
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,884
Location: Victoria, Australia

23 Aug 2008, 7:31 pm

slowmutant wrote:
Was WWII a just war? Yes. If the Allies had not stopped Hitler, the Nazis would've surely destroyed the world. But if the Nazi aggressions had not taken place, no one would have had to kill & die in response to them.



You see here is a perfect example of myth over fact, because the causes of war are not taught truthfully we continue to delude ourselves that you can have a "just' war. I agree that once WW2 had started it was imperative for the allies to finish it, what is more important is that the damn thing should not have started in the first place. WW2 was a direct consequence of war reparations carried out by Britain and France after WW1, the destruction of the German economy and complete humiliation of its people gave hitler the perfect circumstances to grow his brand of popularist fascism. So no it was not a "Just' war' .


_________________
"I'd take the awe of understanding over the awe of ignorance anyday"
Douglas Adams

"Religion is the impotence of the human mind to deal with occurrences it cannot understand" Karl Marx


corroonb
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Oct 2007
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,377
Location: Ireland

23 Aug 2008, 7:36 pm

DentArthurDent wrote:
slowmutant wrote:
Was WWII a just war? Yes. If the Allies had not stopped Hitler, the Nazis would've surely destroyed the world. But if the Nazi aggressions had not taken place, no one would have had to kill & die in response to them.



You see here is a perfect example of myth over fact, because the causes of war are not taught truthfully we continue to delude ourselves that you can have a "just' war. I agree that once WW2 had started it was imperative for the allies to finish it, what is more important is that the damn thing should not have started in the first place. WW2 was a direct consequence of war reparations carried out by Britain and France after WW1, the destruction of the German economy and complete humiliation of its people gave hitler the perfect circumstances to grow his brand of popularist fascism. So no it was not a "Just' war' .


Agreed. The allies made a terrible mistake after World War 1.