Christians...just like the Taliban
- Thread starter 1nitestan
- Start date
As a person who is some what fascinated by the Arab culture this comment interests me. Which Islamic countries would you rather live in (rather that the USA)?
Yes, I am familiar with this Arab communalism and hospitality you speak of. I had many friends in Ontario before they went back to Libya and I left for BC. When the war started there I was so worried for my friends, fortunately they were working and living in Waha.(the desert)
@ juniper: Bombings- Hiroshima and Nagasaki (unless you believe Truman wasn't a Christian). Anybody can strap a couple of explosives onto a belt and blow himself and a few other people up. It takes a real man to drop an atom bomb (on a civilian population).
Had the bombs not been dropped, it would have taken another two years to defeat the utterly tenacious Japanese nation as well as one million allied lives. As it is, we should be extraordinarily grateful for those who persevered on our behalf, Americans, Canadians, Australians and Kiwis. Should you wish to understand the military necessity for the bombs, I suggest you read Victor Davis Hanson on American military history. For a blow by blow account, I recommend Eugene B. Sledge's "With the Old Breed: At Peleliu and Okinawa". Mr. Sledge wrote his book about thirty years after the war as it took him that long to digest the horrendous experiences he and his mates underwent during the fighting in order to defend family and countrymen.
Last edited:
Like so-called Christian religion. The hypocrisy in those religions is unparalleled. At least the Taliban aren't like sheep in wolves clothing. From the bloodshed caused by Christianity... to sexual abuse of minors... to wealthy so-called preachers getting wealthier while they fleece their flocks, it's no wonder why Christianity is mocked.
There are also extremist Atheists, who are just as frustrating to deal with as extremist religious people.
Even the Pope has stated that many aspects of the Bible, especially those in Leviticus, have come to be out of date with our new understanding of the world, and calls for reform.
In order to be a Christian, you must act Christ-like, and proclaim your faith to the Trinity. The unfortunate part is that many Christians do not act Christ-like, and these are the ones that are seen all over the media. The most successful Christians are the ones who you would hardly know to be religious.
Also, in regards to "If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives." (Leviticus 20:13 NAB), this was seen as a major crime back then not primarily for the reasons we interpret it now. It was more likely seen as a major sin because one was releasing sperm into an orifice that would not produce a child, and that was the primary reason for sex. It is the same reason that oral and anal sex were looked down upon, and why the Church still rejects birth control.
Obviously nothing I say is meant to disrespect anyone, nor am I claiming that my thoughts are the only ones acceptable. I try to be open to all people as long as their actions are not harmful to themselves or anyone else.
I also am not a practicing Christian, I just have my minor in religious studies with a focus on Christianity haha.
Even the Pope has stated that many aspects of the Bible, especially those in Leviticus, have come to be out of date with our new understanding of the world, and calls for reform.
In order to be a Christian, you must act Christ-like, and proclaim your faith to the Trinity. The unfortunate part is that many Christians do not act Christ-like, and these are the ones that are seen all over the media. The most successful Christians are the ones who you would hardly know to be religious.
Also, in regards to "If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives." (Leviticus 20:13 NAB), this was seen as a major crime back then not primarily for the reasons we interpret it now. It was more likely seen as a major sin because one was releasing sperm into an orifice that would not produce a child, and that was the primary reason for sex. It is the same reason that oral and anal sex were looked down upon, and why the Church still rejects birth control.
Obviously nothing I say is meant to disrespect anyone, nor am I claiming that my thoughts are the only ones acceptable. I try to be open to all people as long as their actions are not harmful to themselves or anyone else.
I also am not a practicing Christian, I just have my minor in religious studies with a focus on Christianity haha.
Thanks for the dump down version. As the story continues, that poor Chinese kid has grown up now and will undoubtedly look for a little pay back against the Japanese kid and his European friends:eyebrows:. First, he`ll flood their markets with cheap goods while killing most of their manufacturing jobs and amassing their debt instruments to ensure a mutual assured economical destruction in the event of . Then he picks a fight with the Japanese kid about some tiny island in the South China sea which were given to the Japanese kid after they lost the big fight by their European cronies so that they would give up their bio/chemical weapons research amongst other concessions. Sound about right?
LIJ, I can tell you that there about 1.5 billion people who didn`t mind the atomic bombs dropping in Japan.
Last edited:
@juniper: I suggest you note the background of the author you subscribe to on this atrocity. The simple fact is no other nation in the history of the planet has ever dropped nuclear bombs on a civilian population. There are serveral arguments pro and con on how long the war would have gone on along with the Western armed forces death toll had the Americans not allowed the Enola Gay to take off. But that is beside the point. I would say that the only real weapon of mass destruction is a nuclear bomb. It is clearly, in my opinion, a crime against humanity, as it napalm (US in
Vietnam), white prosperous (US in Iraq and Afghanistan) and Daisy Cutters/cluster bombs (Iraq, Afghanistan, Kosovo and Bosnia).
Vietnam), white prosperous (US in Iraq and Afghanistan) and Daisy Cutters/cluster bombs (Iraq, Afghanistan, Kosovo and Bosnia).
yeah, i heard that same clap-trap about 50 years ago, and it's just as much bullshit now as it was then. the japanese homeland did not require an invasion. they had zero manufacturing ability left by the end of the war and next to zero natural resources. they had to rely on fishing the seas for their protein food supply. a simple naval embargo with NO loss of allied lives would have had the survivors of the inevitable starvation and disease begging for mercy in three or four short years
the atomic bombs were a cruel and unnecessary gesture meant to terrorize the rest of the world, not to subjugate japan at all. they did it simply because they could and they've continued their war-like ways ever since
I am well versed in the writings of Victor Davis Hansen. He is a brilliant historian. Are you versed in Professor Hansen's background? I don't think so. Just an oblique reference to minimize my point. Dirty pool.
As to victory in war, better us than them. You have to have been aware of the tenacity of the Japanese people under their emperor to understand what it would have taken to defeat them by invading the homeland. A terrible quagmire. But to you (and Vancity), sounds like you would rather have been (oh so) politically correct and foolishly idealistic at the expense of our own countrymen and allies. You need to comprehend the nature of war and what it takes to defeat an enemy intent on winning if not destroying you. That's why I recommend Victor Davis Hansen. Perhaps his treatise on three generals representing democratic armies, a Greek, William Tecumseh Sherman and General Patton would be a start in terms of your education in these matters.
As to Vancity, yes, at a terrible expense without any assurance of victory we could have tried to blockade Japan. Remember, we were also fighting a devastating war in Europe as well. It also have cost an enormous amount of money. Pretty easy on your part to sit back, sixty-eight years later, with your self-assurance and pacifistic critique.
As to victory in war, better us than them. You have to have been aware of the tenacity of the Japanese people under their emperor to understand what it would have taken to defeat them by invading the homeland. A terrible quagmire. But to you (and Vancity), sounds like you would rather have been (oh so) politically correct and foolishly idealistic at the expense of our own countrymen and allies. You need to comprehend the nature of war and what it takes to defeat an enemy intent on winning if not destroying you. That's why I recommend Victor Davis Hansen. Perhaps his treatise on three generals representing democratic armies, a Greek, William Tecumseh Sherman and General Patton would be a start in terms of your education in these matters.
As to Vancity, yes, at a terrible expense without any assurance of victory we could have tried to blockade Japan. Remember, we were also fighting a devastating war in Europe as well. It also have cost an enormous amount of money. Pretty easy on your part to sit back, sixty-eight years later, with your self-assurance and pacifistic critique.
You do realize war in Europe ended In may 1945 while the atomic bombs were not dropped until August. So no, we weren't also fighting a costly war in Europe when the bombs were dropped. At least get your facts straight before presenting your argument.
Thank you, Dark Knight. I was wrong. I'm sure, during an argument, you, too, have been wrong on stated facts. Nonetheless, I should have known better; and I did know better. The main grist of my argument, however, still holds.
Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished - Matthew 5:17-18
I come not to bring peace, but to bring a sword - Matthew 10:34
Any city that doesn’t receive the followers of Jesus will be destroyed in a manner even more savage than that of Sodom and Gomorrah. - Mark 6:11
Not advocating murder, but interesting....
Everyone will have to worship Jesus -- whether they want to or not. - Philippians 2:10
As well, you said no where in any bible does it say this, well correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the old testament part of the bible????
The hatred for the atrocities committed by the Japanese for me is on par with the hatred of the Nazis by the Jews.That is very true indeed.
I really do hope that you are not one of them, but as you’ve come out a couple times like this, I’m sad to say I think that you are.
Of course, the victors write the history, "Lost-in-Japan". But why is the victor's version any less true than the history written by someone from a defeated nation who writes history? Would the Japanese, or German version, for that matter, necessarily be any more intelligible, precise or insightful than an American version. And, incidentally, there is no "one" American" version of history. That's one of the virtues of a democratic country with a relatively uncensored free press. In the case of the USA, opinion is highly variegated.
The story of the Bataan Death March bears you out, "wilde", at least in terms of unabridged brutality and hatred.
