Wars and ConflictsÌý permalink
Sensitivity to casulties
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.Ìý
Posted by slimdaddy (U14035560) on Monday, 15th June 2009
I have always been horrified when reading of casulties in the FW war. The slaughter was massive, prolonged and horrid.
Men went OTT in the knowledge of almost certain death. The slow walks in ridgid lines that typified earlier assaults in 1914-15 were soon stopped when the attackers were mown down in neat rows. The method of attacking varied over the years but in essence the butchers bill was always massive.
When compared to any campaign before or certainly afterwards the blood price to pay in the battlefield in real terms is always much, much smaller. (I'm of course referring to British casulaties here; troops belonging to a autocratic regime are outside the confines of my scope.)
My point then - is why did the butchers bill during WW1 continue to be paid, especially as all that was typically gained was a destroyed piece of quaugmire. What was it in the psyche of the warring nations that allowed themselves to turn a generation of men into canon fodder? What quirk of history allowed mechanized killing in battles of attrition, to arise at a time when our humanitarian and compassion were at their lowest ebb.
A battle of attrition whereby the object of the battle was not some strategic location but, simply to kill as many enemy soldiers as possible. A myopic, clumsy way to fight a battle.
On the 1st day of the Somme alone 60,000 men became casulties, the blackest day of the British army, yet the battle raged for a a long time afterwards. As a clumsy comparison -the US pulled out of Somalia after losing (a mere!!!!) 19 troops in the Black Hawk down escapade is the Mog.
The FW war was not even a situation of 'total war' seen later in WW2. In many situaitons the FW war seems to have been fought with good chivalry and very little talk of war crimes (In know some were commited against Belgian/French civilians. Propaganda was stoked to tell us the Germans were bayoneting babies but, this was all in the pale compared to the truly evil deeds perpertrated in WW2. The real war crimes of WW1 were commited by Haig et al who organised in essence genocide of those under his command. -
Message 2
Posted by Frank Parker (U7843825) on Monday, 15th June 2009
Hi Slimdaddy. Have you seen this?
-
Message 3
Posted by Mistern (U2728023) on Tuesday, 16th June 2009
It is a bit amazing to think of casualties in past wars. Nowadays, when one soldier dies in Afghanistan it is headline news and this was more or less the same in Iraq. I find it hard to imagine British casualties happening in such a large scale. Mind, I say this is British casualties, I can imagine civilian casualties of foreign countries on this scale happening in modern times, Rwanda, etc!
-
Message 4
Posted by sunshineandshowers (U13926964) on Tuesday, 16th June 2009
"War is organised murder"
Well said Harry Patch!
Such truth in so few words. -
Message 5
Posted by MattJ18 (U13798409) on Tuesday, 16th June 2009
The death toll of the First World War, in terms of percentage of the European population, was probably not that different from some of the other major wars that have been fought (the Forty Year War, Seven Years War and Napoleonic Wars all spring to mind). What was different from Britain's point of view is that we raised a large continental army in order to fight it rather than relying on our navy and allies.
The popular vision of rows of lines of Tommies walking to their death is not an entirely realistic one, certainly in the latter half of the war. What has always struck me about the fighting the British army took part in was the continued death. Most wars are battles followed by manouvre followed by battle. Because of the nature of trench warfare people were dying in action every day. There was a constant threat of death in a way there wasn't normally in war.
As to why Britain was able to take these casualities and carry on fighting I'm not sure there is an easy answer. It was a different time and these things were thought of differently. Both world wars were fought to protect an endangered country and stop Germany gaining a hegemony over Europe. Would we accept that as a cause worth fighting for nowadays? I'm not so sure. It was a citizens army and it's fighting affected everyone. There must have been so many reasons for it to stay in the field, individual, cultural, spiritual and others. -
Message 6
Posted by slimdaddy (U14035560) on Tuesday, 16th June 2009
Plotinlaois,
Thank you for the link. Patch is truly an inspiation to us all.
Sometimes you read figures and it's hard to comprehend them. The article states that casuluties were running at 3000 a day!! It's beyond belief that this was happening. How could anyone hope to survive (physically or mentally) How could this be allowed to go on?
Sometimes when I'm a t a football match I can see what a crowd of 60,000 looks like. And to imagine that is what went through the mincer om the 1st July, 1916 is incomprehensible. -
Message 7
Posted by TimTrack (U1730472) on Tuesday, 16th June 2009
I would suggest that two main reasons have to be taken in to account when explaining the ability to absorb such casualties to a modern aidience. There are others, but these are the main ones.
1) Lack of pictures. People were not naive. They understood that modern warfarw was highly destructive. But they did not get pictures thrown at them of the casualties as they happened. Think of your reaction when you see the results of, say, US airstrike that hits a wedding party in Afghanistan. You see those pictures before the bodies are buried. They had no such speedy communications.
2) It is often forgotten now that the war had political support. That generation did not think of the war as distant un-necessary tragedy. It was, to many, a genuine necessity. They felt threatened by Germany (and they by us). Better to fight the war on the Somme, than by the Thames. -
Message 8
Posted by sunshineandshowers (U13926964) on Tuesday, 16th June 2009
The popular vision of rows of lines of Tommies walking to their death is not an entirely realistic one,Ìý
MattJ18
Was it not so much a 'popular' vision as an order to do so
It might appear unrealistic from todays perspective, but l believe easily achieved in WW1 when youth did as they were told without question to their superiors at any cost to themselves, certainly not King and country.
Both world wars were fought to protect an endangered country and stop Germany gaining a hegemony over Europe. Would we accept that as a cause worth fighting for nowadays?Ìý
The world is always at war somewhere, Britain has been plundering and killing in the name of someones freedom for hundreds of years, taking what is not theirs to take.
Politicians and despots unfortunately will always be able to persuade some of the people most of the time that their latest cause is a cause worth fighting for.
It was a citizens army and it's fighting affected everyone. There must have been so many reasons for it to stay in the field, individual, cultural, spiritual and others.Ìý
I am utterly amazed that men like Rudyard Kipling did all to make sure his son John fought the considered good fight for England.
Too late he found at what cost, like millions of other grieving families.
IMO there is one individual and cultural reason to stay in the field of war, and that is to stand by your friend/brother whatever the consequence to oneself.
The spiritual dimension I'm afraid is beyond reasoning, the Churches made great gain from the oft used words from the gospel of John,
'Greater love hath no man, that he lays down his life for his friend" Peace is the greatest love possible by man.
Power and greed for power makes war IMO of course. -
Message 9
Posted by MattJ18 (U13798409) on Tuesday, 16th June 2009
@sunshineandshowers.
I didn't mean that soldiers were ordered to walk over to the German trenches (at the Somme especially), but that the British commanders weren't the idiots they are sometimes portrayed as. By the end of the war tactics had changed dramatically - the 'Blackadder' version of history which sees them order wave after wave of attacks, year after year just isn't true.
"The world is always at war somewhere, Britain has been plundering and killing in the name of someones freedom for hundreds of years, taking what is not theirs to take." That has little relevance to the First World War - and is pretty dubious as a way of describing the actions of Britain IMHO.
Each person would have had their own reasons for fighting. For some it would, as you say, have simply been a matter of standing by their friends. Others may genuinely have enjoyed the danger and excitement. Some would have seen it as their duty to King and Country. Others because they didn't want to let down their family. Some would have done it because they were forced to by conscription. Others because they believed that the cause was just. Maybe even that God wanted them to defend the Belgians from the bullying Germans. In many cases I expect it was a combination of factors. There's no real answer.
I'd say fear and anger are the real causes of war. The idea of politicians hoaxing their population for power and greed is the argument of someone who listened to John Lennon too much when they were a kid :o) -
Message 10
Posted by sunshineandshowers (U13926964) on Tuesday, 16th June 2009
MattJ18
Soldiers were indeed ordered to walk to their impending death on the fist day of the battle of the Somme which as we know resulted in 60.000 casulaties with virtualy no ground gained.
I am not suggesting that all British commanders were idiots, but they were playing a very different role from the people who were expected to act on those commands, whatever the outcome.
The commanders risks were to career and reputation , rarely loss of life or limb.
I believe Britains role from the building of the British Empire through to the present day has every reflection on how Britain is seen today.
And it is not a very pleasant picture imho.
A relative was in the 36th Ulster Division on the lst day of the Battle of The Somme, l have a suitcase full of letters, photo's and memories refecting on that period and the subsequent war.
All the reasons you give for men fighting are valid for that time, but they could never have possibly imagined in their worst nightmares, the horrors they would see, what did a 18 years old(some as young as 15 managed to get in) know of war and mayhem except from boys story books? They were imo mis-informed and mis-used
If they believed God wanted them to defend another Nation then they were under a mishaprehension.
I'd say fear and anger are the real causes of war. The idea of politicians hoaxing their population for power and greed is the argument of someone who listened to John Lennon too much when they were a kid :o)Ìý
I'm afraid l must dissapoint you at my childhood listening, that was Paul Robeson.
I have too many memories of first hand testimonies of experiences of the true horrors of both wars. Civillians rarely need war, only politicians for reasons known only to them and we only know a fraction of the truth of any of it. imho of course.
There's no real answerÌý
There is an answer, but it forever will remain unpopular, because war is often regarded as men as a necessity, a right of passage to some sort of masculine misguided pride. Sadly many are willing to die for it. -
Message 11
Posted by cloudyj (U1773646) on Wednesday, 17th June 2009
The commanders risks were to career and reputation , rarely loss of life or limb.Ìý
Have you been watching too much Blackadder?
58 British generals were killed during the war.
These folk:
have identified at least 1253 generals fighting on the Western front (the bulk of British activity), which could mean a death rate among generals as high as 1 per 22. So few generals wouldn't personally have known friends of the same rank killed in action.
Of course if you add in other theatres and generals they haven't included (temporary promotions etc) it will come down, but it's still reasonably high. Not so bad as that among the average soldier (about 1 in 9ish), but still shows that generals weren't all skulking in some castle tucked up safely in bed! -
Message 12
Posted by Spruggles (U13892773) on Wednesday, 17th June 2009
Greetings,
TimTrack is perfectly correct when he reminds us that politicians often support the military decisions. They would have to because they usually (in Britain anyway) have responsibility for the convoluted paths of war.
I also accept in large measure the observations of the British Empire by sunshineandshowers.
To return to the original post which did refer to civilian casualties may I bring your attention that the fact that the war was not limited to the Western Front. I think you will find that civilian casualties were higher depending where you base your research. Salonika, Turkey and Russia are all countries that bear investigation.
But the population of Britain was subjected to both air and naval assault, suffered casualties as a result and it is my opinion that those would have been far worse but for the German lack of economic delivery. As too did the residents of all those ruined towns and cities in the way of Western Front conflict. I have never seen a collated list of casualties among civilians for that period but my guess is that they are much higher than we might imagine. There are too the civilians that died at sea due to unrestricted submarine warfare and Merchant Seaman are civilians too.
To the conflict itself and the much maligned Generals, I think it might help to consider the last time Britain actually fought a large scale war after Waterloo(with the very generous assistance of the Germans I might add) We had been engaged only on what one historian described as 'police actions' all over the globe. Trenches, barbed wire and machine guns came as quite a shock to most military leaders. Cavalry was still considered a better form of advance not just because the officers loved horses but because there was not another reliable form of transport in 1914. Of course examples of the difficulties of attacking strongly defended positions were available and observers during the Russo-Japanese war had seen all of the above in use but they were overlooked with the terrible consequences of the Somme. But we need to ask ourselves, what were the alternatives facing the politicians and the generals?
As for the motives behind the ordinary man and his recruitment, they are as previously mentioned, manifold,but again we need to consider social conditions before 1914. Unemployment along with social deprivation were
the major forces behind recruitment into the armed forces. Those proud Scottish, English, Welsh and Irish soldiers who fought so valiantly for the Empire were representatives of the disastrous social policies as much as any willingness to fight for 'King and Country'.
We must not overlook either the persuasiveness of propaganda. Children all over the Empire were inculcated into the manifest benefits of the Empire. On Empire Day, That 'day of days' children were made to put on their best clothes and engage in tea parties. To stand to attention and to salute the Union Flag and to sing 'God save the King.
It was seen as a sworn duty to protect your Sovereign and your Country (a concept which of course was not confined to just to our Empire).
The press extolled the virtues of defending your loved ones (see the Sun's headlines during the Falklands War) You were not a man if you did not take arms against the enemy. Ladies gave out white feathers to men of military age who were not dressed in uniform. It was difficult for an ordinary man to withstand those great stage managed recruitment drives, especially when all his friends were signing up.
Finally, we must forget that in 1916 the Act of Conscription was passed. Thereafter our armed services became 'civilian' so, unless you were medically unfit or willing to face all the vicissitudes of being a 'Conscientious Objector', you had no choice. Unless you fancied the firing squad as a last resort. -
Message 13
Posted by MattJ18 (U13798409) on Wednesday, 17th June 2009
Sunshine - I made a mistake in my last post, it should have read 'weren't' rather than 'were' in the first sentence. Clearly the Somme was a unmitigated tactical disaster for the British.
I would argue though that the British Generals, far from being the callous fools they are often portrayed as actually adopted new tactics and methods very quickly. That the British were able to raise, train, equip and lead a mass army with absolutely no history of mass conscription or suchlike is testament to their abilities in my opinion. As another poster has noted above they shared the danger of the front line, but I also think we have to acknowledge that Generals were often members of the upper classes and their sons and grandsons were generally junior officers. These junior officers paid a disproportionally high price in WWI, which led, at least partly, to the collapse of the class system. The British commanders did, quite simply, risk their own blood and kin on the battlefield. So, for that matter did politicians. Go and see the memorials in the Houses of Parliament if you doubt that.
I just think that to say that WWI was caused by lying politicians and Generals who lied and sent boys to their deaths without giving a damn is a calumny. It was a collective decision, almost universally popular, as the outpouring of fear and anger and joy that greeted the news of war shows. People back then weren't stupid, they must have had some idea of what they were getting themselves in to - even if they had little idea of quite how bad it would get.
I'll leave the pros and cons of the British Empire to another thread! -
Message 14
Posted by sunshineandshowers (U13926964) on Wednesday, 17th June 2009
Spruggles
A very fair view from all angles.
I remember Empire days at School, and l also remember the sadness shown by my Grandmother when receiving a telegram from the King telling her my cousin has been killed in Germany three weeks before the end of WW2.
The sadness was replaced by indignation that the letter received from King George in condolence was rubber stamped but was barely readable.
I remember the general feeling was one of 'we can give our blood, and they can not be bothered to replace an inked pad'
It may be difficult for people today to understand, but it certainly made me as a child think very difficulty when l had to expand in the class room the virtues of Empire.
I also sat with friends who had lost fathers in the war, and saw the indignity of the free meal tickets and the keys wround the neck as their mothers would have as war widows have to be working.
I believe war must affect all who have personal memories if it.
War is a filthy business and l do not believe there are in reality any winners, it diminishes us all. -
Message 15
Posted by slimdaddy (U14035560) on Wednesday, 17th June 2009
I think the previous two thread of Spruggles and sunshineandflowers are bang on the money.
The 2 WW's the UK has been involved in has shaped Britain beyond recognition of the Britain of yesteryear.
As SAflowers says:
I also sat with friends who had lost fathers in the war, and saw the indignity of the free meal tickets and the keys wround the neck as their mothers would have as war widows have to be working.Ìý
I think this quote nails on the head the beginning of the end of tradional family life in the UK and the start of a new system of 1 parent households/broken households.
A lot of servicemen returned to the bosum of their families broken men. Men who would nowadays be seen as suffering as PTSD were simply given a new demob suit and left to get on with it.
I believe war must affect all who have personal memories if it. Ìý
True, though I would go further still and say that war indirectly affects those who are related to soldiers, friends, neighbours....In fact I would go as far to say that the society we live in now is a direct reflection of a country that has lost cream of its members in the muddy fields of France and Belgium; which if not a broken society is a society wanting in so many ways. We live in a self-serving, greedy world country where large amounts of people find it acceptable to carry (and use) knives, where drunken, lewd behaviour in commanplace in almost every town-centre- every weekend, where anti-social behavious is commanplace and gangs rule neighbourhoods. When we look at old black and white pictures of old, we must ask ourselves; How did we end up living in a society like this?
War is a filthy business and l do not believe there are in reality any winners, it diminishes us all.Ìý
Sums it all up really. -
Message 16
Posted by cloudyj (U1773646) on Wednesday, 17th June 2009
The 2 WW's the UK has been involved in has shaped Britain beyond recognition of the Britain of yesteryear.
Ìý
I've always thought that a Victorian would have little difficulty fitting into the modern world. Obviously he'd initially stare at cars and phones, but I think the rapid technological change of his own time would prepare him well for coping with the internet and space travel.
The idea that post-war Britain would be a land fit for heros would also be easily recognizable, the idea of gaining rights for the working man and woman goes back a fair way.
I think this quote nails on the head the beginning of the end of tradional family life in the UK and the start of a new system of 1 parent households/broken households.Ìý
I think we have a rose tinted view of the past. Probably coloured by period dramas showing the middle classes or idealized families. The idea of a nuclear family is actually something relatively recent. Divorce might have been uncommon, but husbands deserted wives and families, women died in large numbers in childbirth and industrial accidents and disease killed with harsh disregard for leaving orphans. Whilst the causes of one parent families might not be the same, the effect was.
And let's remember that women going out to work didn't start during the wars either, working class women have worked in factories since their invention.
We live in a self-serving, greedy world country where large amounts of people find it acceptable to carry (and use) knives, where drunken, lewd behaviour in commanplace in almost every town-centre- every weekend, where anti-social behavious is commanplace and gangs rule neighbourhoods.Ìý
Now that's something that Georgians and Victorians really would think hadn't changed from their own times. The early 1700's papers were full of accounts of workers drinking themselves to death on cheap gin and babies abandoned in the streets. -
Message 17
Posted by sunshineandshowers (U13926964) on Wednesday, 17th June 2009
cloudy
The idea that post-war Britain would be a land fit for heros would also be easily recognizable, the idea of gaining rights for the working man and woman goes back a fair way. Ìý
A land fit for heroes I'm afraid is an anathema.
nearly a century since the end of WW1 we should, as a right of expectation be experiencing much more fairness than is experienced by many.
From the cradle to the grave it might indeed be better superficially from a century ago, but look deeper and nothing much has changed at all.
I think we have a rose tinted view of the past. Probably coloured by period dramas showing the middle classes or idealized families. The idea of a nuclear family is actually something relatively recent. Divorce might have been uncommon, but husbands deserted wives and families, women died in large numbers in childbirth and industrial accidents and disease killed with harsh disregard for leaving orphans. Whilst the causes of one parent families might not be the same, the effect was.Ìý
As l have less of a future and have experienced more of the past l do not believe from that experience is looked at through rose tinted spectacles.
Very few men abandoned their families. Women did die in childbirth and the bringing up of the younger children was taken on by elder siblings.
There was no social security, and people had to rely on each other not the state.
You can not compare the fate of the war orphan to the child with no named or responsible father today.
Now that's something that Georgians and Victorians really would think hadn't changed from their own times. The early 1700's papers were full of accounts of workers drinking themselves to death on cheap gin and babies abandoned in the streets.Ìý
Are you not missing the point that we surely should have progressed to better standards condsidering how many wars have been fought in the name of freedom. Who's freedom and what should it be freedom from, chaos, crime, corruption? should we not expect those men died in their millions for a better life for their descendants, not more chaos than has been experienced before.
I thought wars were fought so that people could progress in freedom and in peace,I dont believe it has worked looking around the world today. -
Message 18
Posted by sunshineandshowers (U13926964) on Wednesday, 17th June 2009
MattJ18
If the Somme was an unmitigated tacticle disaster
then who else can be blamed but the planners.
Generals were often members of the upper classes and their sons and grandsons were generally junior officers. These junior officers paid a disproportionally high price in WWI, which led, at least partly, to the collapse of the class system.Ìý
These young officers were more to be pitied in some measure, because of their naivety in daily living in such horrendous circumstances.
The class system suffered because many did not come home to take up their tools and spades to keep England in the way she had become accustomed. Young women found more money in factories etc. The loss of the young gentleman of the houses was no less tragic because society was forever changed in what they could have done for the country after such horrors and knowing by experience that all men are after all in some measure equal.
It was a collective decision, almost universally popular, as the outpouring of fear and anger and joy that greeted the news of war shows. People back then weren't stupid, they must have had some idea of what they were getting themselves in to - even if they had little idea of quite how bad it would get.Ìý
Of course not stupid!They were worn down and had little hope of gaining anything better,and an old cliche' of knowing your place and taking an order? you are forgetting propaganda, bayoneting of babies, rape of young women, pretty graphic stuff prior tv and the media.
They had no idea of what they were getting themselves into, l do not believe any one saw in the beginningthe calamity it would become, it must have become clear quite quickly it was no walk in the park.
I note about the memorials in The Houses of Parliament. I dont believe that will ever re occur in any present war or of the future.! -
Message 19
Posted by sunshineandshowers (U13926964) on Wednesday, 17th June 2009
slimdaddy
War never solves anything, only creats more problems imho.
War is always started on the premis that you know your enemy, and know how to make him your friend.
Human nature is our enemy, we can choose war or peace, but peace requires long term tactics and honest men and honest dealings.
Human nature at its worst is against such risk, human nature at its best does not want its loved ones threatened, so if we are told we are under threat, then we might easily be drawn into conflict, conflict is chaos, and peace remains a dream. -
Message 20
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Wednesday, 17th June 2009
You are absolutely wrong. War changes a lot and solves a lot of problems especially the problems of where to financially invest and how to take out potential opponents pre-emptively.
War brings destruction and destruction in a language where words have a real meaning by themselves, it means "to go againt something and change it".
As a population controller too it is the second best thing after contagious diseases. Without war you would be still active but... fighting wolfs and lions in the forest... -
Message 21
Posted by cloudyj (U1773646) on Thursday, 18th June 2009
From the cradle to the grave it might indeed be better superficially from a century ago, but look deeper and nothing much has changed at all.Ìý
In some ways no, that was part of my point. Victorian thought wasn't much different to our own. They too lived in an age of change, of inner city squalor and violence.
But are things like free health care really superficial? My late father used to tell how his parents couldn't always provide enough food because their priorities were the rent and health insurance. Missing the odd meal was bad, but a temporary hardship compared to what might happen if one of them was seriously ill.
As l have less of a future and have experienced more of the past l do not believe from that experience is looked at through rose tinted spectacles.
Ìý
I was thinking slightly further back than our lifespans. The Joseph Rowntree Foundation reports into urban poverty from the Victorian period are very chilling, and yes there were plenty of one parent families, some of whom could rely on netwroks of relatives, but it was also a period where Manchester sprang from virtually nothing and the migrants form the countryside didn't always have local extended families.
You can not compare the fate of the war orphan to the child with no named or responsible father today. Ìý
Why not? The only difference is a value judgement placed on the mother/father by society. Otherwise how is the emotional and financial situation different?
Are you not missing the point that we surely should have progressed to better standards condsidering how many wars have been fought in the name of freedom. Who's freedom and what should it be freedom from, chaos, crime, corruption?Ìý
Maybe I have missed the point. I thought Slimdaddy was arguing that we were degenerating to barbarity our ancestors wouldn't recognize?
I thought wars were fought so that people could progress in freedom and in peace,I dont believe it has worked looking around the world today.Ìý
Not sure I agree with that. Wars are generally fought because those in power think that it'll give them some sort of advantage. I doubt that many think of the general good of their citizens - if they did there'd be fewer wars. Neo-cons like Blair might have an idealized view that war can be used to create a better world (and sometimes they're right - Sierra leone is better for British intervention, as is Bosnia), but he's in a minority of warmongers.
I'm also not convinced that the world is actually more violent. Yes, there are indeed some very high profile wars like Iraq, but low profile wars like the Democratic Republic of Congo which grumble on for decades used to be endemic in the developing world and are much less frequent. -
Message 22
Posted by Spruggles (U13892773) on Thursday, 18th June 2009
Sorry E_Nikolaos_E, if what you have just posted passes for some semblance of your thoughts on this subject then I can truly understand why so many people misconstrue why humankind has been continually slaughtering each other.
My understanding is that warfare is the result of the following,
a) Grabbing some body's land
b) Grabbing some body's wealth or resources
c) Grabbing some body's woman.(that's for the classical students among our posters)
d) Monumental conceit
All of the above can only be achieved if the attacker is stronger than the other party, therefore the simplest term to apply is bullying.
Of course the passage of war changes a lot, but it is subjective to state blandly that it solves problems; occupation of land does not solve anything. Have a read of all of colonial history. To accept that 'Right by conquest', or 'Force Magestere' if you will, has any long term benefit to either side is I believe to nurture a concept that should have died out with the passing of the Medieval period.
Monumental conceit is off course self-explanatory. As Emma Hamilton once wrote in a letter, 'There are more wars fought over one little man carrying a flag who wants to march in front of another little man and his flag than anything else.'
It is solipsism, pure and simple. My view, my culture, my religion, my intelligence is superior to yours, ipso facto you must conform to me, or be punished. It may take on a brutal form or a subtle one but the end result is much the same.
Just one example: Quite regularly, I have my peace violated by people who, despite my age, insist that I change my philosophy, surrender my freedom of mind and be subjugated to an regime that I have no faith in. In short, unless I accept their dictates without question, I shall never be elevated to the Kingdom of the Great Sky Fairy., and this in 2009! So all those religious wars(more conceit)have improved my lot, have they?
Lastly, you mention contagious diseases as a means of controlling the population. This is an erroneous concept as I sure you will be aware. No virus, bacillus or pathogen sets out to kill its host. The host exists for the breeding and spreading of the 'gene'. A host that therefore kills its host has failed, therefore it is an accident. Conversely 'Humans' pick their hosts, generally called slaves or untermenschen or just bloody foreigners, but the difference is that humans also target their fellows to satisfy their greed, lusts and ambitions. -
Message 23
Posted by Spruggles (U13892773) on Thursday, 18th June 2009
Sorry E_Nikolaos_E, if what you have just posted passes for some semblance of your thoughts on this subject then I can truly understand why so many people misconstrue why humankind has been continually slaughtering each other.
My understanding is that warfare is the result of the following,
a) Grabbing some body's land
b) Grabbing some body's wealth or resources
c) Grabbing some body's woman.(that's for the classical students among our posters)
d) Monumental conceit
All of the above can only be achieved if the attacker is stronger than the other party, therefore the simplest term to apply is bullying.
Of course the passage of war changes a lot, but it is subjective to state blandly that it solves problems; occupation of land does not solve anything. Have a read of all of colonial history. To accept that 'Right by conquest', or 'Force Magestere' if you will, has any long term benefit to either side is I believe to nurture a concept that should have died out with the passing of the Medieval period.
Monumental conceit is off course self-explanatory. As Emma Hamilton once wrote in a letter, 'There are more wars fought over one little man carrying a flag who wants to march in front of another little man and his flag than anything else.'
It is solipsism, pure and simple. My view, my culture, my religion, my intelligence is superior to yours, ipso facto you must conform to me, or be punished. It may take on a brutal form or a subtle one but the end result is much the same.
Just one example: Quite regularly I have my peace violated by people who, despite my age, insist that I change my philosophy, surrender my freedom of mind and be subjugated to an regime that I have no faith in. In short, unless I accept their dictates without question, I shall never be elevated to the Kingdom of the Great Sky Fairy., and this in 2009! So all those religious wars(more conceit)have improved my lot, have they?
Lastly, you mention contagious diseases as a means of controlling the population. This is an erroneous concept as I sure you will be aware. No virus, bacillus or pathogen sets out to kill its host. The host exists for the breeding and spreading of the 'gene'. A host that therefore kills its host has failed, therefore it is an accident. Conversely 'Humans' pick their hosts, generally called slaves or untermenschen or just foreigners, but the difference is that humans also target their fellows to satisfy their greed, lusts and ambitions. -
Message 24
Posted by sunshineandshowers (U13926964) on Thursday, 18th June 2009
cloudyi
But are things like free health care really superficial? My late father used to tell how his parents couldn't always provide enough food because their priorities were the rent and health insurance. Missing the odd meal was bad, but a temporary hardship compared to what might happen if one of them was seriously ill.Ìý
Unfortunately in my experience we still face a less than satisfactory health service, when it is considered that it employs as many staff as the Indian Railway, and the Chinese Army, something remains obviously wrong, especially as it most likely costs more money to run.
What does that say about a country who has fought 2 world wars and others up to the present day. The latest war with Iraq is now dramatised for entertainment on television.
The Joseph Rowntree Foundation reports into urban poverty from the Victorian period are very chilling, and yes there were plenty of one parent families,Ìý
The latest Rowntree Foundation report was still very worrying for society, whatever is done, nothing much improves it seems.
So what is happening? Wars are fought presumably to gain some sort of progress, where is it to be found?
The only difference is a value judgement placed on the mother/father by society. Otherwise how is the emotional and financial situation different?Ìý
There are a great many children today who have no known father on their birth certificates, or who have known a sucession of 'fathers' in their lives. Their fathers have not been killed in war, but who have become invisible in a system of unacountable anonymousy.
This sort of paternity is paid for by the tax payer. Is that progress, no accountability to the financial or emotional upringing of a child.
What would the men who died for their country think of such 'progress' for the future generations?
I thought Slimdaddy was arguing that we were degenerating to barbarity our ancestors wouldn't recognize?Ìý
slimdaddy will have to answer himself, but l believe he was and l agree with him.
Imho l believe many people would like to look away from how we have not progressed in so many ways from WW1&2 imo any positive progression does little to compensate for societies negative change throughout the world.
I'm also not convinced that the world is actually more violent. Yes, there are indeed some very high profile wars like Iraq, but low profile wars like the Democratic Republic of Congo which grumble on for decades used to be endemic in the developing world and are much less frequentÌý
I hate to sound as though l am making light of violence, Who needs world wars, l suggest you visit A&E Friday through to early hours of Sunday, you could believe you were in war zone, Society is in free-fall, we have still to clean up the streets for the next generation.
Until we stop interfering in other peoples wars, or starting another in the name of freedom whilst ignoring our own in every city and town.
Perhaps that is realy why wars are started, they keep our eyes off the real problems at home and reflect our attention elsewhere. -
Message 25
Posted by sunshineandshowers (U13926964) on Thursday, 18th June 2009
Lastly, you mention contagious diseases as a means of controlling the population. This is an erroneous concept as I sure you will be aware. No virus, bacillus or pathogen sets out to kill its host. The host exists for the breeding and spreading of the Ìý
spruggles
What about the Native Americans who had their blankets contaminated with smallpox? So their land could be appropriated by white settlers.
Who by? good old uncle Sam, the freedom fighters for the whole world.
Quite regularly, I have my peace violated by people who, despite my age, insist that I change my philosophy, surrender my freedom of mind and be subjugated to an regime that I have no faith in. In short, unless I accept their dictates without question, I shall never be elevated to the Kingdom of the Great Sky Fairy., and this in 2009! So all those religious wars(more conceit)have improved my lot, have they?Ìý
Religious wars are started by people who's only belief is in power and corruption.
Surely this doess'nt mean we should shoot the messengers of religion if they come in peace?
Some progress has been made if they didnt take you out and duck you in the nearest pond, or burn you at a stake or lock you away for disbelief.
If they come in peace and speak a message of hope, thats better than all out war isnt it?
You only have to say Thankyou, or no thanks.
Thats true democracy surely? -
Message 26
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Thursday, 18th June 2009
Contagious diseases not killing? Tell that to the 110 million Americans (I mean the natives) that from 1500 to 1600 were reduced to 10 million people from the north to the south. Did they die of cancer or something? No they died from contagious diseases as their white cells were not wired to face the diseases European mariners carried there (from which mariners did not die at all). Serious European settlement in America was only facilited after the end of that unfortunate for Americans "cleaning process".
War are not necessarily done for land. But on all wars one thing it is true, they are done for power. The definition of war by Klaousevitch is that war is the culmination of other forms of antagonism (financial and political) which are finally translated in military events. The motive is to be able to yield your own will over your opponent, not to conquer him decisevely or annihilate him or things like this.
In fact if you see the war since Middle Ages, really few of them had clearly land-based motives and even less had motives like "total annihilation of the enemy". -
Message 27
Posted by slimdaddy (U14035560) on Friday, 19th June 2009
(war)As a population controller too it is the second best thing after contagious diseasesÌý
I can think of a far more effective method of population control – the simple condom! However in writing this I am struck by the rather perverse irony that the Roman Catholic Church denounces the use of such methods of contraception yet, has given it’s blessing to numerous wars. -
Message 28
Posted by Spruggles (U13892773) on Friday, 19th June 2009
E_Nikolaos_E
Greetings.
You seem to have misunderstood my post. I did not say that contagious diseases did not kill. I tried to illustrate that the prime motive of for example the virus is replication/mutation. In order for it so to do it needs a host. If, as a result the host dies then the source of future breeding is lost, therefore the virus has in fact failed. It's a bit like over fishing to use a simple analogy. And the common cold is a wonderful example off how to replicate successfully. The common housefly as far as biology is concerned is not known for either devious or altruistic feelings and like the virus its primary function is the feed and breed(like a few men I know)if during the course of feeding it espies a tasty chicken breast which some clumsy human has left unguarded, it snatches its opportunity for an easy meal. (All members of the animal kingdom being opportunistic feeders) If the meat is then not cooked properly then the human suffers. But in no sense can you say that the fly deliberately set out that morning to give a human diarrhea. Similarly, smallpox has not the death of a human in its sights when it replicates. Anybody who thinks so is watching too much Doctor Who. I was trying to say is that Humans are the only species that deliberately seeks out a victim to destroy. Sorry, I forgot Chimpanzees, and I'm sorry for any confusion my post may have given. -
Message 29
Posted by hotmousemat (U2388917) on Friday, 19th June 2009
I think if you look at the reasoning that caused the nations to form alliances and then go to war in 1914, they are about perceived threat.
The tectonic plates had shifted - the eclipse of Austria by Germany, the retreat of Turkey, leaving instability in the balkans...I think that each nation reasoned that if they did nothing then things would become even more dangerous.
For example, Britain might reasonably argue that if France was not supported and lost again then their would be no counterweight to Germany - and if Germany also controlled the North Sea ports - then in the long term Britain would be in big trouble, so better to fight now. And can we say they were wrong? And I think the other nations had their equivalent arguements.
People usually choose to fight only when they feel they have been pushed into a corner. -
Message 30
Posted by Spruggles (U13892773) on Friday, 19th June 2009
sunshineandshowers,
Greetings,
As far as your post on smallpox is concerned please see my reply to E_Nickolaos.
I'm afraid that I cannot agree with your observations about religions. First, the motive behind most of my callers is not to spread love and peace but to recruit me into their religion.
They care little for other faiths no matter on which dogma they are aligned to. The church they belong manifests itself in the fact that they will openly admit that theirs is the only true religion. They, and they alone are the true disciples of Christ(hence my reference to conceit). I have proved this time and time again to my own satisfaction by telling the caller that I am in fact Orthodox Jew, Catholic, Quaker, etc. In every single case I have then been informed that they have many recent converts of all of the above in their congregations and they have then attempted to convert my beliefs. Perhaps the church hall needs urgent repair and are in need of my donations?
Lastly the dunking and persecutions have not ended, they, as I hinted in my other post, have subtly changed.
I believe it was in the middle of the 19th Century that the last sentence of death was carried out for heresy but I believe that you can still be excommunicated for far less crimes.
Do they still not carry out exorcism? You know to free the body of a witch? I have no need to remind you that the Holy Bible has a responsibility for the long held rubbish about that mythology.
Peace and love is it?
I remember seeing a photograph of the His Holiness the Pope blessing the Italian Air Force ... now was that just before or just after they had carried out the gas attacks on the Abyssinian tribes people?
And as far as freedom of thought is concerned, well I shan't mention birth control because somebody has just posted their thoughts, but I will mention the bar on marriage for some clergy and the long held belief that women are subservient to man and not good enought to become clergy in their own right. And look, I haven't even mentioned original sin or beautification, not the attempts to stifle science or scientific research! -
Message 31
Posted by Spruggles (U13892773) on Friday, 19th June 2009
hotmousemat,
Greetings I agree in part that the origins of WW1 were as you say AS you rightly say, the threat of German expansion was seen as a threat to our Empire and our world trade. We were neutral during the Franco-Prussian War because while these two big nations were at each others throats we could get on with our business. However, when the threat to our trade became apparent it was time to forge new alliances. So the protection of our empire with all its manifest benefits, cheap goods, cheap labour etc was paramount; it was still, in effect, about possession of land/wealth.
I think too that 'people' should be replaced with 'politician' -
Message 32
Posted by Spruggles (U13892773) on Friday, 19th June 2009
sunshine and showers,
Greetings. I'm sorry that I forgot in my last post to mention how much I agree with your statement about the A&E situation. It is a constant source of wonderment to me how medical staff can continue to work under the current conditions. As an ex railway worker(or should I say one who was employed by the railway?) I too have witnessed the behaviour of our so-called civilised populations. My secret desire was to video it all and then invite the families of the perpetrators to sit down and watch their exhibitions and the commentary would be ... 'and this is your father ... etc' I used to think that it might be a deterrent but now I think that my idea might just be responsible for inventing a 'League Table' where my erstwhile fellow citizens would vie to get a mention. -
Message 33
Posted by sunshineandshowers (U13926964) on Friday, 19th June 2009
Spruggles
I risk being told off shortly and reminded that this is a board for War & Conflicts.(someone surely will)
If people believed in the loving God then we would not have wars, and unfortunately religion has shot itself in the foot on too many ocassions doing the wrong thing in opposition to God in persuading the proleriat it is all for the common good. God is still blamed, not very fair is it?
Yes there are still exorcisms, because people whilst knocking God forget the other side of the coin Satan, which is so beloved by film makmers, but not so people until they get caught up in things they find they have no control over.
Religion can be very hypocritical l agree, and yet l am a person of faith, the main reason I am anti-war.
I do not agree with female clergy, although a female, That is purley scripture based on my part. Women are also wanting to fight in the front line now,equal rights or equal wrong?
Better stop here before someone objects.
I agree with most of your negatives about religion, but are we wise to believe there are no positives is we seek them out? -
Message 34
Posted by sunshineandshowers (U13926964) on Friday, 19th June 2009
hotmousemat
l believe much of what you say is correct.
So war begins with a fear that can not be assuaged, and goes onto become a greater suspicion then a greater fear, which leads maybe to a world war.
So simple, so consuming. so deadly -
Message 35
Posted by Spruggles (U13892773) on Saturday, 20th June 2009
sunshineandshowers,
Greetings,
I agree we had better be careful! I have no objection to belief but rather what people do with it. My objection is being bullied into subjection from an early age into a set of beliefs that was not in my power to object to.
I cannot agree with what you say about woman's place in the scriptures. Why should a person adhere slavishly to one doctrinal concept while abandoning others? Convenience Christianity?
I object not to a belief in any form(that's my conceit out of the way!)but conceit in the notion that I MUST believe, after all I don't go knocking at doors to spread Darwinism.
Please accept my kind regards,
'Spruggs' -
Message 36
Posted by U3280211 (U3280211) on Saturday, 20th June 2009
If people believed in the loving God then we would not have warsÌý
I'm not convinced that more 'God' would stop wars.
The evidence from history and scripture implies that He/She/It is quite into 'smiting'.
The problem here is obvious. If we start introducing our own unsubstantiated revealed 'truths' about 'God' and 'Satan' we shall get in a pickle.
Alastair Campbell advised Blair: "we don't do God" and he got that one right, imho.
How the concept of a 'God-backed' war has been used, over the ages, to amplify hostilities between peoples, strikes me as a perfectly reasonable topic for this board, but if we start talking about 'Satan' as if such an entity exists, then we are entering the territory which Wittgenstein warns is:-
Wovon mann nicht sprechen kann, darüber muss mann schweigen (From the Tractactus, p1. "About which we cannot speak we must remain silent")Ìý -
Message 37
Posted by Frank Parker (U7843825) on Saturday, 20th June 2009
U3280211 - couldn't agree more! I sometimes think the evocation of "God" and "Satan" is too often used as a way of excusing or absolving men (and women) from responsibility for their actions and inactions.
-
Message 38
Posted by sunshineandshowers (U13926964) on Saturday, 20th June 2009
U3280211
The problem here is obvious. If we start introducing our own unsubstantiated revealed 'truths' about 'God' and 'Satan' we shall get in a pickle.Ìý
you consider we are not in a pickle? wars and never an answer or an end to them, let alone many areas of the world that are in increasingly in chaos,
Alastair Campbell advised Blair: "we don't do God" and he got that one right, imho.Ìý
By the same token perhaps he should have been better advised not to do war at all.
Ironic maybe, that 'not doing God' in office became very much 'doing God' out of it, even to playing at being Middle East Peace envoy among other things, some even based on faith.
At some point it will be found that God
'does'nt do excuses' whatever the reasons given.
How the concept of a 'God-backed' war has been used, over the ages, to amplify hostilities between peoples, strikes me as a perfectly reasonable topic for this board, but if we start talking about 'Satan' as if such an entity exists, then we are entering the territory which Wittgenstein warns is:-
Wovon mann nicht sprechen kann, darüber muss mann schweigen (From the Tractactus, p1. "About which we cannot speak we must remain silent")Ìý
It is men alone who use God to back up wars,
mostly without any consultation with Him.
Were all Germans bad and dishonourable of course not, were the Allies all good and honourable of course not.
We all have personal choice Whatever is happening to us, Young German university students were guillotined for trying to bring the plight of Jews and the death camps to the attention of the Allies.
A German Sargeant refused to be part of a firing squad in Eastern Eaurope and stood with the victims to be shot his name now with theirs on a memorial.
There are thousand of acts like this in every war on every side, so just who is the enemy and who is the friend? Which is good, and which evil?
The French Milice, who were more feared than the 'enemy'. We are responsible only in the space and the moment we stand in and
the action we take and the words we say.
Wars make this more difficult but it can not destroy our personal power over our own decisions, imho.
We either choose to follow God, and therefore acknowledge Satan exists, and recognise both when in evidence and speak out of that which we do know.
It is personal choice, experience and knowledge
So each man to his own of these.
Wittgenstein chooses his, I choose mine, you choose yours. -
Message 39
Posted by sunshineandshowers (U13926964) on Saturday, 20th June 2009
Plotinlaois
sometimes think the evocation of "God" and "Satan" is too often used as a way of excusing or absolving men (and women) from responsibility for their actions and inactions.Ìý
God and Satan are only in evidence of people who believe in their existence.
When we hear as we often do of the most horrific crimes as in wars and ever increasingly in our every day news, what is it that makes some people heinous and some not?
The most heinous are often found to be mentally in control of their actions.
That is when we often hear the crime described as 'pure evil'.
Most understand what is meant by this, but have little regard to what it actually means or how it affects the world around us.
We do not have to believe it or acknowledge it does exist, but that alone does not prove it does not.
Every one of us is responsible for our actions however life treats us, we just need to acknowledge the part we play on the journey. -
Message 40
Posted by Spruggles (U13892773) on Sunday, 21st June 2009
Dear sunshineandshowers,
Greetings. I wasn't prepared to contribute further to this board but what you said about responsibility needs I think to be clarified.
Those who claim to have no responsibility for their actions are generally classed as psychotic. Recent research would indicate that they indeed have no concept of 'wrong' as the majority of 'normal' people do. They are also prone to neologism and quite often claim that they are in contact with something or someone who are their guides in earthly matters.
Now I am not suggesting any parallels here but the use of the word 'evil' in this context is only used by those who are short of a thesaurus.
I personally am not a believer because to be so I would be obliged to accept the concept of the supernatural, witchcraft, black magic, original sin, transubstansiation and eternal life.
I accept that all that is a personal choice but I insist in believing that the human mind has evolved to be the the remarkable, puzzling but altogether a wonderful organ, even if it sometimes fails to function entirely how we would like it to.
Best regards Spruggs. -
Message 41
Posted by sunshineandshowers (U13926964) on Sunday, 21st June 2009
Spruggs
this context is only used by those who are short of a thesaurus.Ìý
The thesaurus is a wonderful tool for choosing a word to suit other than one that implies a proper meaning to its subject.IMHO of course.
I accept that all that is a personal choice but I insist in believing that the human mind has evolved to be the the remarkable, puzzling but altogether a wonderful organ, even if it sometimes fails to function entirely how we would like it to.Ìý
Of course, however the brain on its own would be useless surely, the body is many parts of the same person, and where is personality, character, morality, anger, love, indifference.
These are the invisibles that make the man.
IMHO of course....
regards s&s -
Message 42
Posted by Spruggles (U13892773) on Sunday, 21st June 2009
Dear Sunshineandshowers,
Greetings again,
Of course the traits of humankind are as a result of either instinct or training, nurture and nature if you wish. However, love, fear and anger could all be instinctive behaviour. The first for propagation, the second for self-preservation, the third for self-defence, all of which are manifest in the animal kingdom. What we refer to as the finer attributes to the human, kindness and as say, morality etc are possibly as a result of nurture.
I would really love to explore the nuances of how humankind developed 'ethics' with you as it is of great interest to me, but I suspect that they came about as a result of learning to live together as a cohesive tribe, as too did the need for Gods, however, as you have already said, this is not the board for such discussions.
There is an old saying that 'Man cannot make a worm, yet he creates Gods by the score'. I think that there is a great deal of truth in that but I know you would disagree.
Kind regards, Spruggs. -
Message 43
Posted by U3280211 (U3280211) on Sunday, 21st June 2009
S&S (33 and 38)
In your message 33 you correctly anticipated that someone would soon tell you that religion is best discussed on the many Â鶹ԼÅÄ Religion boards, just a mouse click away.
Spruggles and others told you as much in a very polite way. I told you as much in a blunt way.
So, since you are persisting with your mission to bring your revelations about 'God' and 'Satan' to us all, then I assume you are looking for a theological debate here?
There are several problems with this approach:-
1) There is no evidence which you could bring to this thread which would inspire me to believe in 'God' and I would not be so crass as to try to undermine your obvious faith.
2) This board usually deals with topics where published evidence or personal recollection can add to the flow of debate. To argue that your 'God' hates wars while the 'Gods' of others seem positively to revel in them gets us nowhere. (It merely reasserts your unsubstantiated belief in what I assume is a Christian God, but in your case your particular form of Christian 'God' frowns on the idea of women priests?).
3) By adding your profoundly-held beliefs about 'Satan' to this mix, you enter a realm (and invite us to join you there) which excludes normal historical and evidential discourse. If this board opens up to debating such personal claims and revelations we shall soon be counting Angels dancing on pins.
4) I am truly delighted that the word 'God' fills a 'God-shaped hole' in your psychology.
But let's keep God for the 'God boards'? -
Message 44
Posted by sunshineandshowers (U13926964) on Sunday, 21st June 2009
U3280211
Sorry to have caused you such obvious annoyance and offence by coming on this board which is titled History; Wars & Conflicts.
So, since you are persisting with your mission to bring your revelations about 'God' and 'Satan' to us all, then I assume you are looking for a theological debate here?Ìý
There is no theological debate to be had, l have my opinion shaped by my faith, and you have your opinion shaped by your lack of it.
Does this conclude that one or the other is of less importance? I do not believe it does.
1) There is no evidence which you could bring to this thread which would inspire me to believe in 'God' and I would not be so crass as to try to undermine your obvious faith.Ìý
I did not come onto this thread to inspire anyone, I answered the OP which was to me an interesting one. Are you suggesting that only the athiest and his non belief have anything of value to add to the history of war and conflict?
2) This board usually deals with topics where published evidence or personal recollection can add to the flow of debate. To argue that your 'God' hates wars while the 'Gods' of others seem positively to revel in them gets us nowhere. (It merely reasserts your unsubstantiated belief in what I assume is a Christian God, but in your case your particular form of Christian 'God' frowns on the idea of women priests?).Ìý
You appear to want your cake and eat it too here ! You have an opinion about women priests, Why should it interest you if you are not interested in religion?
Would you describe more recent Muslim terrorists activities as a religious war? Or is that too recent to be comfortably dealt with here in politicaly correct terms? Or is Christianity as easier target?
3) By adding your profoundly-held beliefs about 'Satan' to this mix, you enter a realm (and invite us to join you there) which excludes normal historical and evidential discourse. If this board opens up to debating such personal claims and revelations we shall soon be counting Angels dancing on pins.Ìý
You are picking and choosing to suit your own agenda here. You are mighy offended by the title Satan, and yet do not believe evil exists.
Does that mean you believe all wars to be just and correct? Why do all wars and all regiments have a Padre? to pray with the men to make them feel......what? in your opinion.
Do the governments who send people to war intend the Padre should confirm they are on the winning side?
Angels dancing on pins, you have one on me i'm afraid, your understanding experience of Angels is very different from mine.
But let's keep God for the 'God boardsÌý
The Christian TOPIC board is full of Athiests telling the Christians about the same as you some more politely most not.
If l see an interesting discussion here that I want to add comment to, then perhaps you could avoid my post. -
Message 45
Posted by U3280211 (U3280211) on Sunday, 21st June 2009
S&S
Sorry to have caused you such obvious annoyance and offenceÌý
Not at all. No offence taken.
Game on...
Before we go further could I bother you for a few definitions of terms you use like confetti:-
'Evil'. What do you mean by that? The absence of 'good' or something more profound?
'Satan'. Who or what is that? If I see one, how shall I recognise it.
'God'. Who is yours and where might I find one?
Now back to your post:-
You have an opinion about women priestsÌý
No. It is you has the strong opinion about women priests. You don't like them. Why not?
Personally, I'm a big fan of the Vicar of Dibley.
I did not come onto this thread to inspire anyoneÌý
Mission accomplished.
Would you describe more recent Muslim terrorists activities as a religious war?Ìý
Well, if a Muslim says he is fighting a Jihad, I suppose I would say that he defines such conflict as 'religious'. Wouldn't you?
You appear to want your cake and eat it tooÌý
What's wrong with that? No point in keeping inedible cakes.
Or is Christianity as easier target?Ìý
Not at all. All faith groups, especially the Abrahamic ones, make outrageously insupportable claims. Or are you the first person here who is going to live forever and come back to tell us about the experience?
You are picking and choosing to suit your own agendaÌý
Of course. Do you expect me to win a debate by starting by showing you my areas of vulnerability?
e.g. Dowding to Goering: "if you press harder on the Tangmere sector for five consecutive days we shall run out of replacement aircraft". Would he have said that in September 1940?
Do the governments who send people to war intend the Padre should confirm they are on the winning side?Ìý
Well, let's see. The Padre isn't going to be very popular if he starts his address:-
"Morning chaps, God Bless, and all that, but we are all doomed to get a very painful death this morning"
Can't see it catching on, as a job description, can you? -
Message 46
Posted by Frank Parker (U7843825) on Sunday, 21st June 2009
S&S,
I'm sorry if this clouds your first "s" and turns the second into a veritable tempest but I feel bound to remind you of some recent history related to "Christianity":
-
Message 47
Posted by sunshineandshowers (U13926964) on Monday, 22nd June 2009
I'm sorry if this clouds your first "s" and turns the second into a veritable tempest but I feel bound to remind you of some recent history related to "Christianity":Ìý
Plotinlaois
Unfortuantely, I am all too aware of the horrors carried out in the 'name' of Christianity.
Men (& woman) who like to use their power to abuse the powerless, will use institutions such as religion and the care of children to enable them to abuse without fear and as we know are often protected by the hierachy of the institution.
It is easier to appoint the blame to God than the guilty because that takes courage from the rest of us to speak out, and uncover abuse, and make sure the guilty are punished.
Should we not be just as saddened and shocked that in earhtly terms of law and justice, they all apparantly escape their just punishment, especially as it is the church that protects them?
What answer did you expect me to give?
I know such evil and power over the powerless exist, it has been a part of my career path.
Battles and wars rage daily the planet over, this is one more of the worst kind. -
Message 48
Posted by sunshineandshowers (U13926964) on Monday, 22nd June 2009
U3280211
'Evil'. What do you mean by that? The absence of 'good' or something more profound?
Ìý
Both.
'Satan'. Who or what is that? If I see one, how shall I recognise it.Ìý
I believe in all probability at this moment in time you would be powerless to recognise it.
'God'. Who is yours and where might I find one?Ìý
No one else can find God for you, you have to seek Him out yourself.
No. It is you has the strong opinion about women priests. You don't like them. Why not?Ìý
You mentioned women priests, I disagreed with your opinion.
Personally, I'm a big fan of the Vicar of Dibley.Ìý
Not surprised.
Well, if a Muslim says he is fighting a Jihad, I suppose I would say that he defines such conflict as 'religious'. Wouldn't you?Ìý
Not at all. All faith groups, especially the Abrahamic ones, make outrageously insupportable claims.Ìý
AS we know there is much hypocrisy in all religions, why should this one be any different?
Or are you the first person here who is going to live forever and come back to tell us about the experience?Ìý
Why would I want to?
Of course. Do you expect me to win a debate by starting by showing you my areas of vulnerability?
e.g. Dowding to Goering: "if you press harder on the Tangmere sector for five consecutive days we shall run out of replacement aircraft". Would he have said that in September 1940?Ìý
What is wrong with vulnerability? we have passed the neanderthal man period, there is more to life than blood letting, vicious battle and winning an argument.
Well, let's see. The Padre isn't going to be very popular if he starts his address:-
"Morning chaps, God Bless, and all that, but we are all doomed to get a very painful death this morning"
Can't see it catching on, as a job description, can you?Ìý
Depends on who's behalf the job description is undertaken doesnt it? Man or Gods.
You obviously have all the answers that please you, so I am sure there is little left for me to say on this post. -
Message 49
Posted by Frank Parker (U7843825) on Monday, 22nd June 2009
S&S. It was probably unfair, unkind and certainly provocative of me to draw attention to that particular spectacle. You're response is fair and reasonable. But won't convince me that I should believe in your - or any - "God". I remain firm in my belief that we are all responsible for our own acts (or lack of action). Bestb wishes, PiL
-
Message 50
Posted by sunshineandshowers (U13926964) on Tuesday, 23rd June 2009
Plotiniaois
Not unfair at all, perfectly reasonable in the circumstances of such crimes that appears to go unchallenged and protected.
s&s
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or Ìýto take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
Â鶹ԼÅÄ iD
Â鶹ԼÅÄ navigation
Â鶹ԼÅÄ links
Â鶹ԼÅÄ Â© 2014 The Â鶹ԼÅÄ is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.