Take Back Our Country

[carpedm9587]

One would hope not. The problem is that power tends to corrupt. And it does not matter if that power is religious or nonreligious.

[carpedm9587]

One difference i can think of is that the Crusade deaths were mostly military. Armies on both sides killing each other. I am sure there were some civilian casualties or atrocities along the way from both sides (The crusades started because the muslims were attacking Christian pilgrims on the way to the Holy Land) - But the Khmer Rouge was genocide. Killing cambodian civilians. Pol Pot was more akin to Hitler than the Pope of the Crusades. Not a valid comparison on your part.

And yet it remains religious war...

And yes, the Khmer Rouge was genocide. No question about it. I'm not sure why that makes it better/worse.

[Sparko]

And yet it remains religious war...

And yes, the Khmer Rouge was genocide. No question about it. I'm not sure why that makes it better/worse.

so it was a religious war. It doesn't make it an atrocity or genocide by their own government. If you don't think genocide is worse than a normal war action, religious or not, then there is something wrong with you that I can't fix with a post.

[carpedm9587]

so it was a religious war. It doesn't make it an atrocity or genocide by their own government. If you don't think genocide is worse than a normal war action, religious or not, then there is something wrong with you that I can't fix with a post.

Wow...

[Sparko]

Wow...

So in your mind, people dying in the US Army in WW2 were just as bad as what Hitler did to the Jews?

[carpedm9587]

So in your mind, people dying in the US Army in WW2 were just as bad as what Hitler did to the Jews?

Again... I can only say "wow...."

[One Bad Pig]

So if an atrocity takes longer to unfold, it's less of an atrocity?

You know better than that. Quit evading the point - if you can.

No one said "necessary." When weapons become more powerful, the opportunity for greater destruction increases as well. In other words, we don't know what the destruction during the Crusades would have been if they had had 20th century weapons.

They'd have been over a lot more quickly, because neither side had the manpower to sustain fight in the face of such mass destruction.

Likewise, we don't know what the destruction in Cambodia would have been if they had not had them.

Have you not been paying attention?

The atheist genocide in Cambodia didn't rely on modern technology for its killing. It's a counter-example to the idea that atheist atrocities only look so bad because by pure chance they happened in a time when military technology allowed greater killing rates.

"Not supposed to be" and "are not" are not the same thing.

Did I say it was? We're comparing ideals here, right?

As noted - everyone take positions on issues. Mine do not require me to first interpret what god wanted as written in a 2,000+ year old tome with no original documents and available to most as a translation only.

Mine don't especially, either. 1) Love God. 2) Love your neighbor as yourself. 3) Act accordingly.

I can simply look at the situation, and assess it against my moral posture directly. And my moral posture can change as new information becomes available.

Yes, you have no moral backbone. You are the final arbiter of what is right, and so can excuse whatever you want - and you imagine that's a good thing.

OBP, when someone has determined that "X is what god wants," attempting to change that perspective is close to impossible.

I'm not much in favor of individuals determining what god wants - that's one reason I'm Orthodox.

After all, anything you say is speaking directly against "the will of god." It locks people in worldviews. Some of these are good - which is good. Some of these are abysmally bad - but there is no shaking someone who believes they are acting "as god wills."

And you think there is the possibility of shaking someone who believes they are doing 'what is right'? Take you for example. Let's not pretend that you're open to changing what you believe is right.

In my experience, for fundamentalist Christians, that would make you a rarity - at least in my experience. I cannot tell you how many times I have been told (here and elsewhere) that my thoughts words are useless because I am "not saved."

I'm not sure where you got the idea that I'm a fundamentalist Christian. I was raised in a fundamentalist church, but I rejected some of its views even as a teenager, and the intervening years have not gotten me any closer.

Actually - they do it because it's a good thing to do. They don't do it because of atheism.

Oh, I agree. Because atheism is not a motivating factor, atheism itself cannot be credited with being 'very good' because of it. You yourself say that it's not material.

They also don't do it because god expects it. When an atheists acts, it's not because it is the will of god, or because it will earn them heaven. They do it for no other reason than it is the right/good thing to do.

Because they decide it is the right/good thing to do. That "right/good thing" could be killing kittens and puppies (*graphic pics*) because they think that's better than putting them up for adoption.

[carpedm9587]

You know better than that. Quit evading the point - if you can.

And I note you have not answerd the question...

They'd have been over a lot more quickly, because neither side had the manpower to sustain fight in the face of such mass destruction.

Have you not been paying attention?

I have. You're supposing without a basis...

Did I say it was? We're comparing ideals here, right?

Worldviews...

Mine don't especially, either. 1) Love God. 2) Love your neighbor as yourself. 3) Act accordingly.

I think you're glossing over a lot...

Yes, you have no moral backbone. You are the final arbiter of what is right, and so can excuse whatever you want - and you imagine that's a good thing.

What you describe as a "moral backbone" I would describe as a fixed/unbending view that cannot accept new information. That's not a "good" thing.

I'm not much in favor of individuals determining what god wants - that's one reason I'm Orthodox.

I'm not much in favor of individuals imposing their view of what a god, that does not exist, wants on other humans. That is a formula for a species run by fancy rather than fact.

And you think there is the possibility of shaking someone who believes they are doing 'what is right'? Take you for example. Let's not pretend that you're open to changing what you believe is right.

It has happened. And I am indeed open to changing my views...when someone has a credible argument to offer. It has happened more than once in my life. But there has to be a credible argument behind it.

I'm not sure where you got the idea that I'm a fundamentalist Christian. I was raised in a fundamentalist church, but I rejected some of its views even as a teenager, and the intervening years have not gotten me any closer.

Interesting. I had the impression that you adhered to a literal interpretation of the bible. Not quote young earth, mind you, but definitely "if it's in the NT, it is TRUTH." Am I wrong...?

Oh, I agree. Because atheism is not a motivating factor, atheism itself cannot be credited with being 'very good' because of it. You yourself say that it's not material.

Correct. An atheist does not see "good" as arising from "what god wants" or "what the bible says." So when we act for good, it is because we see in the thing itself a good. When we act for good, it is because we see it as the right thing to do - not because "god says so."

Because they decide it is the right/good thing to do. That "right/good thing" could be killing kittens and puppies (*graphic pics*) because they think that's better than putting them up for adoption.

You are now in Seer's domain. I have no comment to such debate tactics.

[Sparko]

Again... I can only say "wow...."

Is that your passive-aggressive way to avoid answering me?

[carpedm9587]

Is that your passive-aggressive way to avoid answering me?

No - it is my fairly straightforward way of expressing amazement that you could even ask the question.

If you don't already know what I am going to answer...what anyone would answer (I hope)...then we've probably shifted too far from reality for any reasonable discussion.

[Sparko]

No - it is my fairly straightforward way of expressing amazement that you could even ask the question.

If you don't already know what I am going to answer...what anyone would answer (I hope)...then we've probably shifted too far from reality for any reasonable discussion.

You were the one who said:

And yet it remains religious war...

And yes, the Khmer Rouge was genocide. No question about it. I'm not sure why that makes it better/worse.

You seem to think that a war is as bad as a government committing genocide. So why aren't the deaths of soldiers in WW2 just as bad an atrocity as the Nazi genocide of Jews?

Your playing games and acting outraged or surprised by my question is just your way of avoiding the consequences of your stated views.

[carpedm9587]

You were the one who said:

You seem to think that a war is as bad as a government committing genocide.

You are attempting to take a position I have on a particular set of wars (the Crusades) and apply it to all wars. Since my original position was specifically about the Crusades - that attempts is not justified.

So why aren't the deaths of soldiers in WW2 just as bad an atrocity as the Nazi genocide of Jews?

That is a complex question. In general, however, I would equate those who are killed fighting a country that performing genocide with those being killed by the genocide itself, especially if they were conscripted to do so. The lack of choice brings them into direct parallel. For a volunteer fighting force, I am in awe of their bravery and willingness to oppose such atrocity. I have no mechanism for assessing "better" or "worse."

Your playing games and acting outraged or surprised by my question is just your way of avoiding the consequences of your stated views.

And you are (again) attempting to read minds. History tells me that, when you do that, nothing I say will make any difference, so you are welcome to your opinion. You're wrong - but I suspect you will very likely not believe that.

[Sparko]

You are attempting to take a position I have on a particular set of wars (the Crusades) and apply it to all wars. Since my original position was specifically about the Crusades - that attempts is not justified.

you are equivocating again. It started when I made the statement that the people killed in the Crusades were mostly military: Armies. Just like in any other war. Wars are fought for many reasons: religion, land, politics, resources. They all have armies and people die fighting them. There is nothing different about a religious war. The Crusades were because the Muslims invaded Jerusalem, took it over, and then started killing pilgrims. They started it. Not much different than why modern wars start today.

Yet you made the asinine comment that you didn't see any difference in those deaths and genocide.

Now you are trying to equivocate your way out like you usually do.

That is a complex question. In general, however, I would equate those who are killed fighting a country that performing genocide with those being killed by the genocide itself, especially if they were conscripted to do so. The lack of choice brings them into direct parallel. For a volunteer fighting force, I am in awe of their bravery and willingness to oppose such atrocity. I have no mechanism for assessing "better" or "worse."

I can't parse that at all. Try again.

And you are (again) attempting to read minds. History tells me that, when you do that, nothing I say will make any difference, so you are welcome to your opinion. You're wrong - but I suspect you will very likely not believe that.

I am not reading minds, I am commenting on what you are actually DOING. You do it often enough that it is easily recognizable. You are a very wishy-washy passive-aggressive debater. You like to imply a lot of things, then back down when called on it, claiming you never said what you implied. When pushed further, you start equivocating, redefining words, nitpicking points, claiming you answered in a previous post, and then if that doesn't work, you claim you have said what you wanted and you are done because nothing productive is happening and you will give the person the last word. In other words, you run away. Never resolving the conflict or admitting you were wrong.

It is a pattern with you. Not hard to predict. Not mind reading.

[carpedm9587]

you are equivocating again.

No

It started when I made the statement that the people killed in the Crusades were mostly military: Armies. Just like in any other war. Wars are fought for many reasons: religion, land, politics, resources. They all have armies and people die fighting them. There is nothing different about a religious war. The Crusades were because the Muslims invaded Jerusalem, took it over, and then started killing pilgrims. They started it. Not much different than why modern wars start today.

When you take a statement about a particular conflict, and attempt to generalize it to all wars, you are applying the statement in a way I did not say or intend. A country can enter into a war as a matter of defense - or a matter of aggression. It can do so fora huge number of reasons, each of which will color the morality of that war. So to attempt to equate the deaths from all wars with genocide does not work, and I would never suggest such a position.

Yet you made the asinine comment that you didn't see any difference in those deaths and genocide.

Sparko - why is it so difficult for you to discuss civilly?

Now you are trying to equivocate your way out like you usually do.

Responding to these has become pointless. So I'll have to start making it a practice to simply bleep over them.

I can't parse that at all. Try again.

Yeah - badly worded. My bad.

Basically - if a fighting force is fighting to protect itself against genocide, or to protect others against genocide, their deaths are as horrendous (to me) as those being killed directly by the genocide, especially if they were conscripted to this war. I find that to be so because the deaths would not be necessary if there was no genocide. When the fighting force is conscripted in other contexts, or is voluntary in this context, things get fuzzy/complex and I see no clear way to make an equality. I am in awe, however, of the voluntary force that fights a war against the genocide of a foreign people. That is an amazing degree of sacrifice. Part of me feels those deaths are worse than the genocide, but I have no way to defend/support that position except on feelings.

I am not reading minds, I am commenting on what you are actually DOING.

"You're playing games" is an attempt to read minds, Sparko. And you're failing, because I'm not playing games in the least. But, as I have noted before, history suggests you will continue to claim you are not reading minds, and then continue to attempt to read them...

You do it often enough that it is easily recognizable. You are a very wishy-washy passive-aggressive debater. You like to imply a lot of things, then back down when called on it, claiming you never said what you implied. When pushed further, you start equivocating, redefining words, nitpicking points, claiming you answered in a previous post, and then if that doesn't work, you claim you have said what you wanted and you are done because nothing productive is happening and you will give the person the last word. In other words, you run away. Never resolving the conflict or admitting you were wrong.

It is a pattern with you. Not hard to predict. Not mind reading.

It will truly be refreshing if you can ever get to the point where you simply stick to the argument, and stop assuming the worst of the other person, and wasting time/ink complaining about it. But that's entirely up to you. At this point, going forward, I'll either skip over those sections or cut them out entirely and stay focused on the argument.

[Roy]

The Crusades were because the Muslims invaded Jerusalem, took it over, and then started killing pilgrims. They started it.

The first crusade didn't start until more than 400 years after Jerusalem was first captured by Muslims. Your account is too simplistic.