CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
We were always thought in history class that Stalin did indeed deserve the plaudits ; a snippet from the magazine History Ireland which would be my understanding as taught in Irish schools anyway
.........When World War II ended in 1945 few doubted that the victor’s laurels belonged mainly to Joseph Stalin. Under his leadership the Soviet Union had just won the war of the century, and that victory was closely identified with his role as the country’s supreme commander.
I'm Irish , I was born and raised in the Republic of Ireland and the education we got was generally pretty fair when it came to teaching History as it was and not some revisionist nonsense .
I've discovered before that most Americans just baldy assert America won the war and that's it
I'm Irish , I was born and raised in the Republic of Ireland
Ah, well that explains it. I'm English, so I probably got a similar version of history. Don't know why I assumed you were American. I think probably because of your views on 9/11.
I've discovered before that most Americans just baldy assert America won the war and that's it
Yeah. I fully stand by the claim that their culture has devolved into an outright idiocracy. They've literally invented a culture where bullshit is incentivised and rewarded. It's little wonder many of them wouldn't know truth if they fell over it in the dark.
Yes an English friend of mine got a very similar very rounded education in History .
I'm not going back there 😂😂😂
I know two American tutors in the American college over here and they both say that the educational system in the states is totally lacking when compared to the European model which is mostly far superior
I know two American tutors in the American college over here and they both say that the educational system in the states is totally lacking when compared to the European model which is mostly far superior
Yeah bro. It seems like it's all about creating the perspective that the world couldn't exist without America. I notice frequently that many Americans seem incapable of creating their own arguments by actually analysing a topic properly. Instead there seems to be only one argument -- usually based on some kind of fallacy or misunderstanding -- which they all repeat using slightly different wording. It's an absolute textbook sign of social indoctrination. The argument that dropping the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki saved lives is a good example. In this instance they use a fictional result to justify a real one.
I meet a lot of Americans over here as Dublin Ireland attracts them in droves , they do indeed place themselves on a very lofty pedestal as in without them the world would be fuckecd .
The argument I can never get my head around is the one regards guns , the minute I've made a case regarding being anti - gun I'm hit with the most irrational justifications for the " right " to own a firearm , it's rare one gets an American who's totally anti gun .
Believing dropping bombs on Japan saved lives is to embrace absurdity
This one above you in the waterfall is just a classic:-
If the atomic bomb didn't happen a lot of people would have died for no reason
Yeah. We nuked 200,000 civilians so a lot of people wouldn't die for no reason.
How do you even begin to argue with someone whose basic premise is a complete inversion of reason?
Predictably, they seem to have the opposite view about the "necessity" of 9/11. Sorry Yanks. We had to fly planes into your towers because we're at war with you and we wanted to save innocent people from dying.
"Believing dropping bombs on Japan saved lives is to embrace absurdity"
Do you think that the war would have ended within 5 weeks of when it ended? The Japanese had a major biological weapons attack planned for the U.S. which would have hit 5 weeks after the war ended. When they used these biological weapons on Changde, China, 200k-580k died, as a comparison, ~200k died by the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs.
I disagree with your assessment as I said earlier .....Japans navy was decimated it had no allies; its islands were under a naval blockade; and its cities were undergoing concentrated air attacks.
Japan was all but deafeated anyway .
A combination of thoroughly bombing blockading cities that were economically dependent on foreign sources for food and raw materials, and the threat of Soviet entry in the war, would have been enough.
"I disagree with your assessment as I said earlier ."
You and I haven't discussed this topic before, perhaps you're thinking of another debate where I agreed with you that we shouldn't nuke N.K.
"Japan was all but deafeated anyway ."
Perhaps, but then why didn't it surrender? Further, why didn't it surrender after Hiroshima and Truman's demand for surrender, warning that more were to follow? There was, after all, 3 days break between the first and second bomb. It appears to me that Japan still had some fight left in it to reject Truman's demand for surrender.
This strategy is also in line with an auction tactic, whereby if one knows that their rival will continue to bid dime and penny until the price is super high, a large jump in bid can actually result in a cheaper purchase. This is because there is little difference in each incremental increase which makes the rival bidder continue beyond their budget, whereas a large jump shocks them into ceasing bidding.
"A combination of thoroughly bombing blockading cities that were economically dependent on foreign sources for food and raw materials, and the threat of Soviet entry in the war, would have been enough."
But was it enough that the war would have ended within the month, before the Japanese biological attack on the U.S. was scheduled? If not then the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki saved lives. Personally, if I was aware that my enemy had such stunning biological warfare capabilities, as demonstrated by their use on China, I would want to immediately end the war by any means necessary.
The Japanese alleged biological attack is actually similar to the real life fate of the units involved.
In reality the Japanese attempted to sail the I-13 and I-14 submarines, which were critical to Operation Cherry Blossoms at Night, to attack US carriers.
They were detected, attacked, and damaged by US aircraft, then US destroyers hunted and sank them with depth-charges.
In the unlikely event that the five submarines were not detected and sunk on their long journey across the Pacific or on approach to San Diego (the intended target), they would launch fifteen aircraft.
The aircraft would almost certainly be detected and shot down. US defences were substantial as it was a major fleet base.
In the event some of them managed to crash land on US soil (it was a kamikaze attack) and the pathogen (infected flees) weren't destroyed in the crash, the US would very quickly realise the aircraft were not carrying normal bombs, and institute a quarantine. Even so there would've been casualties and the quarantine would cause severe disruption to San Diego.
The operation was cancelled as impracticable, largely for the reasons given above. The other planned operation, to attack the lock gates of the Panama Canal, would likely have had a bigger strategic effect but was also unlikely to have succeeded.
"In reality the Japanese attempted to sail the I-13 and I-14 submarines, which were critical to Operation Cherry Blossoms at Night, to attack US carriers.
They were detected, attacked, and damaged by US aircraft, then US destroyers hunted and sank them with depth-charges."
Are you talking about the battle of Saipan? I had thought only one plague submarine was used there, in addition, in a battle a surfaced submarine is a sitting duck, the same doesn't apply outside of battle. The subs were intended to act covertly, only surfacing for a few minutes to launch their planes. Honestly if you surface a sub in a battle it will be sunk almost instantly.
"In the unlikely event that the five submarines were not detected and sunk on their long journey across the Pacific or on approach to San Diego (the intended target), they would launch fifteen aircraft.
The aircraft would almost certainly be detected and shot down. US defences were substantial as it was a major fleet base.
In the event some of them managed to crash land on US soil (it was a kamikaze attack) and the pathogen (infected flees) weren't destroyed in the crash, the US would very quickly realise the aircraft were not carrying normal bombs, and institute a quarantine. Even so there would've been casualties and the quarantine would cause severe disruption to San Diego."
I sincerely doubt they all would be shot down before unleashing their balloon bomb payloads and even if shot down I don't believe that all the plague bearing fleas would die. As for the efficacy of a quarantine, I am skeptical of this considering that the balloons would spread over large distances. Also, considering that kamikaze attacks were a Japanese staple and explosive balloon attacks had been utilized before, I'm not so sure it would be instantly recognized as a biological attack.
"The operation was cancelled as impracticable, largely for the reasons given above. The other planned operation, to attack the lock gates of the Panama Canal, would likely have had a bigger strategic effect but was also unlikely to have succeeded."
It's certainly possible that the operation was cancelled and Americans made the Japanese pretend that it wasn't cancelled for propaganda purposes. There is, however, no such record that it was cancelled and all the sources I've read state that it was still scheduled when Japan surrendered.
Which piece of information specifically? I only knew most of this because I read about Unit 731 in the past and did a little online research for details during our discussion.
The americans had no justification, they just wanted to try ou their new toy and show the russians they had the balls to use it, Japan was going to surrender anyway
The americans had no justification, they just wanted to try ou their new toy and show the russians they had the balls to use it, Japan was going to surrender anyway
Yeah. They are full of shit because they can't justify it based on facts. They have to justify it based on their own straw man argument of what they claim the enemy intended to do.
Your own article claims that the A-bombs did not affect Japans decision to surrender. That means that the bombing of Hiroshima was not significant enough to Japans leadership to warrant surrender. Your article also claims that the second bomb in Nagasaki didn't really do it either.
Maybe the A-bombs didn't seem significant enough to Japan because the conventional firebombing campaign of Tokyo killed over 100 thousand, while neither A-bomb alone reached that level initially.
If the A-Bombs weren't so terrible as to bring Japanese surrender, and neither was more destructive than a conventional campaign, then the use of A-Bombs could be considered no more immoral (only quicker) at the time of use than the conventional warfare bombing tactics employed by all comers.
If the A-Bombs weren't so terrible as to bring Japanese surrender, and neither was more destructive than a conventional campaign, then the use of A-Bombs could be considered no more immoral (only quicker) at the time of use than the conventional warfare bombing tactics employed by all comers.
Two wrongs are not equivalent to one right, Amarel. If I poke you in the eyes then that does not make kicking you in the balls morally justifiable.
Furthermore, you changed your argument halfway through making it. You began talking about how devastating the allied firebombing of Tokyo was, and then ended by falsely implying the Japanese did the same thing. The Japanese did not firebomb any American city to the effect of 100,000 casualties. In contrast, the Pearl Harbor attack killed 2,403 Americans, and less than 3 percent were civilians.
I haven’t implied that American cities were bombed. I’m implied that the conventional warfair used by the US was on par with war at the time. The point being that Japan didn’t seem to think that the A-Bombs were particularly worse than conventional war that all were engaged. If your argument is now that the US was wrong to engage in conventional warfair before the A-Bomb, then your a moral imbecile. When wars have to be fought, and this one did, they should be fought with no other aim than to win as soon as possible.
I haven’t implied that American cities were bombed.
Why do you even bother lying when your own words are still on the page for everybody else to read?? You said:-
the use of A-Bombs could be considered no more immoral (only quicker) at the time of use than the conventional warfare bombing tactics employed by all comers.
Your argument was:-
A) That the nuclear bombs caused no more devastation than the firebombing of Tokyo, when in fact even in terms of immediate deaths they killed twice as many people, not accounting for the long term radiation damage and subsequent birth defects which affected the Japanese population across multiple generations.
B) That the Japanese were conducting a similar firebombing campaign back to the United States (i.e. "conventional warfare bombing tactics employed by all comers"), therefore the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki can be justified.
Stop lying every time you open your mouth or I'll ban you from the thread you ridiculous cretin.
Basically everything you said in the above post is a lie or incorrect, as I will demonstrate. Your “A)” is factually incorrect and your “B)” is a complete misrepresentation of what I said.
As I said before, I haven’t implied that American cities were bombed. I stated that “conventional warfare bombing tactics (were) employed by all comers”. If you read that and, rather than take away exactly what is said, you take away that Japan bombed US cities, then you’re a fucking retard and I can’t help you. On the other hand, if you take away that everyone was involved in conventional warfare that was devastating, and the Japanese didn’t appear to take the A-Bomb as a threat more significant than other forms of warfare (after all, the bombs didn’t end the war) then you will see the point. A point made by your source.
The firebombing campaign in Tokyo killed 88,000-97,000 people. The death tolls for Hiroshima and Nagasaki were 90,000-146,000 and 39,000-80,000 respectively. However, the bombs only killed about half those numbers in each city at the time they were dropped. Meaning they wouldn’t have appeared significantly worse than other conventional means, which is implied by your source and explains why Japan didn’t surrender. If the A-Bombs did not appear significantly worse than other conventional warfare, they cannot be said to be more immoral than other conventional warfare which, as I said, was practiced by all involved.
You want to say that the A-bombs were the worst thing ever while simultaneously having no effect on Japanese foreign policy. These are mutually exclusive. Either the A-Bombs were an extension of the conventional war everyone was already involved in, thus they failed to inspire Japans surrender, or the A-Bombs were new, terrible, and terrifying, which is why Japan surrendered following the detonation of the second bomb that they didn't think we had. You pick.
The long run negative effects of A-Bomb radiation couldn’t have been known at the time of use (that would take a long-run analysis). I don’t wish to understate the terrible nature of those long term effects, but they have historically been overstated. For example, while cancer risks increased with proximity to the blasts “most survivors did not develop cancer”. Furthermore, children of survivors may possibly face some small additional health risks, but as of now “no differences in health or mutations rates have yet been detected among children of survivors”.
As I said before, I haven’t implied that American cities were bombed. I stated that “conventional warfare bombing tactics (were) employed by all comers”.
And since one of the "comers" was the Japanese Air Force, you are continuing the same deceitful word salad I just requested that you stop.
You are now banned because you simply can't stop telling lies. When you are asked to stop, you double down on the lies.
It's a hard subject, but I think there was no need for dropping the bomb. The war was pretty much finished by then. If they had dropped the nuclear bomb on Berlin a year or 2 earlier, it would be justified, because the war was still raging, and the allies needed to end the war. But after Germany surrendered, Japan had no chance to win, and if they had not dropped the bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the war would only have been prolonged for a few weeks. Less people would have died, and they would have still won the war without the innocent civilian casualties. I know that the Americans also did this to show the Russians they had the bomb, and were open to using it, but that still wouldn't have changed the landscape of things. If they had just done a demonstration to both Japan and Russia of the Nuclear bomb, then the Japanese would probably surrender, and Russia would know the extent of the bomb's power.
The first question is were Hiroshima and Nagasaki of military importance? They both were: http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/ mp06.asp. And being of military importance your characterization of it as nuking civilians is misleading. Civilians did die, of course, because nuclear blasts and their fallout are so massive. But this wasn't a case of picking a completely non-military target and obliterating it.
The second question is whether ANY use of a nuclear weapon is justified? In our present day I would agree it should not be. But what makes it different in WWII is it was a brand new weapon the world had never seen and the strategy of shocking the enemy to end the war was valid (and indeed it actually achieved that). To do the same today decades later is completely different because the whole world already knows what these weapons are and can do.
And the third question, one you probably haven't considered, is that of the mirror scenario... If Japan had developed nuclear weapons first would it have hesitated to use them on the USA? The answer to that is a resounding no. Japan had already used kamikaze pilots, brutal prisoner of war camps, raped Asian women in captured territories, and of course started the war with the US with the sneak attack on Pearl Harbor. Japan would have gleefully nuked LA and San Fran if they had the ability.
Japans navy was decimated it had no allies; ts islands were under a naval blockade; and its cities were undergoing concentrated air attacks.
Japan was all but deafeated anyway .
A combination of thoroughly bombing blockading cities that were economically dependent on foreign sources for food and raw materials, and the threat of Soviet entry in the war, would have been enough.
I could agree it was overkill. But I'm still not convinced overkill, especially at the end of a long brutal war, is an egregious immoral act. And I still stand by my claim that at any time Japan would have used the nuke on the USA if it had access to that technology.
Yesterday Winston made the claim that Japan could resort to bio war fare but that claim has been anylysed and put to bed .
There are so many claims regarding why it was justified and I can understand why the need is there to justify it .
Regarding operation Cherry Blossom
Courtesy of Graeme Shimmin Historian ......
The Japanese alleged biological attack is actually similar to the real life fate of the units involved.
In reality the Japanese attempted to sail the I-13 and I-14 submarines, which were critical to Operation Cherry Blossoms at Night, to attack US carriers.
They were detected, attacked, and damaged by US aircraft, then US destroyers hunted and sank them with depth-charges.
In the unlikely event that the five submarines were not detected and sunk on their long journey across the Pacific or on approach to San Diego (the intended target), they would launch fifteen aircraft.
The aircraft would almost certainly be detected and shot down. US defences were substantial as it was a major fleet base.
In the event some of them managed to crash land on US soil (it was a kamikaze attack) and the pathogen (infected flees) weren't destroyed in the crash, the US would very quickly realise the aircraft were not carrying normal bombs, and institute a quarantine. Even so there would've been casualties and the quarantine would cause severe disruption to San Diego.
The operation was cancelled as impracticable, largely for the reasons given above. The other planned operation, to attack the lock gates of the Panama Canal, would likely have had a bigger strategic effect but was also unlikely to have succeeded.
I see. So half a century after this happened, half a century without war crimes filed against the USA and with Japan ever since becoming our close ally, now anyone with a different understanding of the event than you is an idiot?
I find it interesting that maneuvers to convince Stalin to declare war on Japan may have been the bigger reason why they surrendered. Indeed I don't really even feel a need to dispute that. Because your debate heading doesn't say "the real reason Japan surrendered was Stalin, not the A-bomb". What your heading says is there is no moral justification for nuking them, and that's a whole separate argument.
Bottom line is it was war, and if Japan had the nuke first it would have used it on the USA.
The US was morally justified.
Granted the US is a bunch of arrogant simple minded fvcks. I can give you that. But being that does not automatically make them immoral to have dropped the bomb.
Indeed I don't really even feel a need to dispute that. Because your debate heading doesn't say "the real reason Japan surrendered was Stalin, not the A-bomb". What your heading says is there is no moral justification for nuking them, and that's a whole separate argument.
You began your argument by claiming it was of military importance to nuke them, and the only thing I can think of which commands enough military importance to murder 200,000 civilians is the total surrender of the Japanese army. Are you in fact saying that it is morally acceptable to just nuke any random city which houses a strategic military target?
Bottom line is it was war
Killing civilians is just as illegal during a war as it is at any other time. Do you not understand the concept of a war crime?
Per the first paragraph, the style of warfare in both WWI and WWII was wholesale, with blanket carpet bombing and entire cities obliterated.
Per the second paragraph, even today there are collateral damages when military targets are sought, and most of the time no one gets charged for a war crime for doing it.
A simple appeal to authority isn't going to cut it when the very first link I posted completely and specifically refutes your premise that they were of military importance.
I'm not sure whey the link doesn't work but here is the text:
"Hiroshima
The city of Hiroshima is located on the broad, flat delta of the Ota River, which has 7 channel outlets dividing the city into six islands which project into Hiroshima Bay. The city is almost entirely flat and only slightly above sea level; to the northwest and northeast of the city some hills rise to 700 feet. A single hill in the eastern part of the city proper about 1/2 mile long and 221 feet in height interrupted to some extent the spreading of the blast damage; otherwise the city was fully exposed to the bomb. Of a city area of over 26 square miles, only 7 square miles were completely built-up. There was no marked separation of commercial, industrial, and residential zones. 75% of the population was concentrated in the densely built-up area in the center of the city.
Hiroshima was a city of considerable military importance. It contained the 2nd Army Headquarters, which commanded the defense of all of southern Japan. The city was a communications center, a storage point, and an assembly area for troops. To quote a Japanese report, "Probably more than a thousand times since the beginning of the war did the Hiroshima citizens see off with cries of 'Banzai' the troops leaving from the harbor."
The center of the city contained a number of reinforced concrete buildings as well as lighter structures. Outside the center, the area was congested by a dense collection of small wooden workshops set among Japanese houses; a few larger industrial plants lay near the outskirts of the city. The houses were of wooden construction with tile roofs. Many of the industrial buildings also were of wood frame construction. The city as a whole was highly susceptible to fire damage.
Some of the reinforced concrete buildings were of a far stronger construction than is required by normal standards in America, because of the earthquake danger in Japan. This exceptionally strong construction undoubtedly accounted for the fact that the framework of some of the buildings which were fairly close to the center of damage in the city did not collapse.
The population of Hiroshima had reached a peak of over 380,000 earlier in the war but prior to the atomic bombing the population had steadily decreased because of a systematic evacuation ordered by the Japanese government. At the time of the attack the population was approximately 255,000. This figure is based on the registered population, used by the Japanese in computing ration quantities, and the estimates of additional workers and troops who were brought into the city may not be highly accurate. Hiroshima thus had approximately the same number of people as the city of Providence, R.I., or Dallas, Tex.
Nagasaki
Nagasaki lies at the head of a long bay which forms the best natural harbor on the southern Japanese home island of Kyushu. The main commercial and residential area of the city lies on a small plain near the end of the bay. Two rivers divided by a mountain spur form the two main valleys in which the city lies. This mountain spur and the irregular lay-out of the city tremendously reduced the area of destruction, so that at first glance Nagasaki appeared to have been less devastated than Hiroshima.
The heavily build-up area of the city is confined by the terrain to less than 4 square miles out of a total of about 35 square miles in the city as a whole.
The city of Nagasaki had been one of the largest sea ports in southern Japan and was of great war-time importance because of its many and varied industries, including the production of ordnance, ships, military equipment, and other war materials. The narrow long strip attacked was of particular importance because of its industries.
In contrast to many modern aspects of Nagasaki, the residences almost without exception were of flimsy, typical Japanese construction, consisting of wood or wood-frame buildings, with wood walls with or without plaster, and tile roofs. Many of the smaller industries and business establishments were also housed in wooden buildings or flimsily built masonry buildings. Nagasaki had been permitted to grow for many years without conforming to any definite city zoning plan and therefore residences were constructed adjacent to factory buildings and to each other almost as close as it was possible to build them throughout the entire industrial valley."
Thanks Grenache, but can you cut out everything except the part of the text which supports your contention that the strikes were of military importance? The only part I could find related to your claim was:-
Hiroshima was a city of considerable military importance. It contained the 2nd Army Headquarters, which commanded the defense of all of southern Japan.
So, forgive me, but it sounds like either you or the article is suggesting it is "of military importance" to take out an entire city in order to attack something contained within that city. How would you feel if the government nuked New York and tried to use the reasoning that it was fine because a terrorist lived there? Better still, do you think 9/11 was justified if the terrorists wanted to take out a company on the fortieth floor which was interfering with their food supply?
Throughout the entirety of WWII the Axis and the Allies were bombing whole cities because they were militarily important. That wasn't unique to bombing Japan.
Throughout the entirety of WWII the Axis and the Allies were bombing whole cities
So your argument is that killing civilians is fine if other people are doing it too? I believe that's called the Bundy defence. It doesn't work well in court.
No, my defense is it was consistent with what was going on throughout the WWII theatres of battle. If the US was immoral then so were most of the nations involved in that war.
To the contrary, if it's the norm being practiced throughout a war lasting years then you can't single it out as being immoral.
Second, your link requires a subscription to read so I can't compare to know why it disproves mine, unless you want to paste it in somehow for the rest of us nonsubscribers to read.
Second, your link requires a subscription to read so I can't compare to know why it disproves mine, unless you want to paste it in somehow for the rest of us nonsubscribers to read.
I was permitted to read the full article until I closed the page and tried to reopen it. Are you sure you haven't done that?
The article essentially says that many historical scholars have concluded Stalin's intention to join the fight against the Japanese is what caused them to surrender. You're not an idiot, Grenache. You are more than capable of using Google to find another link. For example:-
That probably happened. I bounce back and forth a lot on what I have open.
To be fair, I find the Stalin story quite interesting and don't doubt that was a big factor. I just don't think that alone in juxtaposition to the US lore that dropping the bomb ended the war somehow automatically makes the act of nuking them immoral. Instead, I think what the Stalin info confirms is the reality that there are many contributing influences to what happens in history and it's seldom as simple as boom - here's your one answer. And if there isn't just one simple answer then it's hard to definitively declare dropping the bomb was an immoral and criminal act.
What most people don't know is that Japan had biological weapons that when used on Changde, China, resulted in 200k-580k deaths. These weapons were to be used on the U.S. but Japan surrendered 5 weeks before the planned date of use. The bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, on the other hand, caused ~200k deaths. It seems to me then, that the bombings actually saved lives.
It was completely justified, all of those innocent humans and wildlife dying was necessary for the war effort. We need to kill eachother don't you understand? we're ANIMALS and we are supposed to KILL, GOD DAMN IT. Radiation poisoning is good for your skin Nomenclature, you should go dive into area 51 nuclear waste disposal and inject polonium into your eyeballs.
I'm sure there are some very intelligent people who feel morally justified for all sorts of things that they have done that might seem immoral.
I'm sure there are some very intelligent people who believe and argue that certain seemingly immoral acts were in fact morally justified.
What is the standard?
What seems moral to one is immoral to another. What is good to one is evil to another. If we make ourselves the standard, we have embraced arbitrariness.
So what is real? What is the truth?
The truth is that everything happens for a reason, even the embracing of arbitrariness. What happens is meant to happen. What happened was meant to happen. The Will of God is always done.
So what really happened? Does anybody really know what really happened? Does anyone really know what is really happening? I think if anybody thinks they really know, they must not be paying very close attention. If they paid close attention, they would have no choice but to acknowledge the overwhelming and complex web of causality surrounding that which cannot be accounted for. Meteorologists are a mad bunch in the head, they are.
So what what do you think happened? What is constructing your view on what you think happened?
The Matrix Has You!
What are the things we find important? What are the things we value? How do these priorities affect the integrity of our opinions when it comes to anything? How does a poor, broken, self destructive, anti-social, isolated, unproductive, thieving, ungrateful chemical fetishist justify themselves? How does it reinforce what they do? How does effect the sincerity of their faith? How does it negatively effect everyone around them? How is it not a nuisance?
But I tell you that you who judge them do the very same thing in your hearts when you sacrifice truth for power. There is no greater power than The Truth in The Ultimate Reality. Creatures of the flesh are bound to the flesh, and it is The Word of God that makes the flesh. Forgiveness is better than tolerance. Tolerance is cancerous. Tolerance still leaves much tension rising beneath the surface. Forgiveness is the peace of God. Charity entails that we do not hold on to these images. These images? They are not reality. They are distant from us. They are cold, carved in stone. They are without life. They are idols. These idols divide people, but God unites people.
