WAS dropping atom bombs on WWII Japan an immoral act?

[RickD]

Killing is immoral ( it is never right), but at times it is necessary (which doesn't make it right,just necessary).

If doing wrong is sometimes necessary, would you say there are times when sinning is necessary also?

Ken

Good one Kenny. I'm glad you have a sense of humor!

[Philip]

PaulSacramento wrote: Killing is immoral ( it is never right), but at times it is necessary (which doesn't make it right,just necessary).

Wrong. MURDER is never right. But killing is sometimes necessary in war, in defense of loved ones, etc.

Ecclesiastes 3:

1For everything there is a season, and a time for every matter under heaven:
2a time to be born, and a time to die;
a time to plant, and a time to pluck up what is planted;
3a time to KILL, and a time to heal;

God never causes or commands sin, so when He commanded Israel to wage war - which always involves killing - it was not a sin. Killing in war cannot be equated with murder.

Jesus Himself told His disciples to take a sword along their travels for protection. God didn't give Israel an army to go out and play pattycakes with its barbaric enemies. David's slaying of Goliath is held up as a heroic deed by God's faithful servant.

[PaulSacramento]

Killing is immoral ( it is never right), but at times it is necessary (which doesn't make it right,just necessary).

If doing wrong is sometimes necessary, would you say there are times when sinning is necessary also?

Ken

Yes, of course.
It doesn't make it right, it simply makes it a necessary choice to make.
The best example is to take a life of someone that is trying to kill someone else and the ONLY way to stop them is to kill them.
The taking of the life is wrong, but it was necessary.

[Kenny]

Killing is immoral ( it is never right), but at times it is necessary (which doesn't make it right,just necessary).

If doing wrong is sometimes necessary, would you say there are times when sinning is necessary also?

Ken

Yes, of course.
It doesn't make it right, it simply makes it a necessary choice to make.
The best example is to take a life of someone that is trying to kill someone else and the ONLY way to stop them is to kill them.
The taking of the life is wrong, but it was necessary.

Does God judge the necessary sins less harsh than he judges the necessary sins?

[Kurieuo]

God's judgement aka D-Day, is like a pass/fail. You need 100% to pass, or else you fail. If you fail = death, eternally so. In this way, all sin is the same as each other in that is reaps the same consequence: Death.

[PaulSacramento]

PaulSacramento wrote: Killing is immoral ( it is never right), but at times it is necessary (which doesn't make it right,just necessary).

Wrong. MURDER is never right. But killing is sometimes necessary in war, in defense of loved ones, etc.

Ecclesiastes 3:

1For everything there is a season, and a time for every matter under heaven:
2a time to be born, and a time to die;
a time to plant, and a time to pluck up what is planted;
3a time to KILL, and a time to heal;

God never causes or commands sin, so when He commanded Israel to wage war - which always involves killing - it was not a sin. Killing in war cannot be equated with murder.

Jesus Himself told His disciples to take a sword along their travels for protection. God didn't give Israel an army to go out and play pattycakes with its barbaric enemies. David's slaying of Goliath is held up as a heroic deed by God's faithful servant.

Ah yes, thanks for the clarification, MURDER is never right.
Thanks Philip I should have been more clear.

[PaulSacramento]

Killing is immoral ( it is never right), but at times it is necessary (which doesn't make it right,just necessary).

If doing wrong is sometimes necessary, would you say there are times when sinning is necessary also?

Ken

Yes, of course.
It doesn't make it right, it simply makes it a necessary choice to make.
The best example is to take a life of someone that is trying to kill someone else and the ONLY way to stop them is to kill them.
The taking of the life is wrong, but it was necessary.

Does God judge the necessary sins less harsh than he judges the necessary sins?

We will all find that out, soon enough.

Let me put it this way: God judges intention.

Let THAT sink in.

[abelcainsbrother]

Killing is not wrong,murder is wrong.Learn the difference.God is for justice while we are living here in this world.It is not just justice on judgment day but God is for justice in our world too and there must be killing in order to have justice.Rome ruled in Jesus's day and Jesus obeyed Roman law or you would suffer the consequences for not obeying the law which would often lead to killing.

So Render.
https://youtu.be/SWQX3jlF7kM

[abelcainsbrother]

We better be glad that SOME nation is trying to stop the spread of nukes, seeking treaties of non-proliferation, etc. The history of nations is inherited by the grandchildren of those of WWII era. So, we today SHOULD be trying to keep the nuke peace. And the most powerful thing that keeps it is assured self-destruction. If the benevolent nations gave up their nukes, you can be the likelihood of aggressive nations using their nukes would be FAR greater. If there were no western nukes, and none in Israel, do you think Iran wouldn't nuke Israel in a skinny minute? And then it's Arab enemies.

Know why there was not huge rage per Trump declaring our embassy to be put in Jerusalem? It's because the Arab nations know that siding against the U.S. right now would only help the Persians - the perpetrators and spreaders of much terrorism against Arab interests. A fully nuclear, unchecked Iran terrifies the kingdoms of the Gulf! These Arab nations also know that Israel is a strong ally - even if an undeclared one - against the spread of Iranian aggression against them - so they're more anti-Iran than they are pro-Palestinian.

But, Kenny is correct, a necessary invasion to stop Japan would have killed more per conventional weaponry - with the result likely far more casualties. However, we should have demonstrated the power of such a bomb in a remote area first - maybe several times - before launching over a civilian population - which might well have worked.

Sorry buddy but you're being alittle too politically correct for me.In a war you never let the enemy know what you're going to do or can do,you go to win.One of the biggest reasons we don't win wars any more is because of political correctness and we have lost the ability to actually win like we could and it costs alot more too,in American lives and money too.We get bogged down in war now because of politics and we have not won a real war in a long time because of it. I know war is ugly and it should always be last resort and I know that alot of these proxy wars to control others were faught for the wrong reasons but when you do go to war,you must go to win and not worry about how you do it.

[Philip]

ACB, WHAT the heck are you talking about - how even remotely was I making a PC statement???

[abelcainsbrother]

ACB, WHAT the heck are you talking about - how even remotely was I making a PC statement???

First off,I said alittle too PC for me.Overall,I agree with your take on it but it just bothered me a tad-bit with you suggesting that perhpas we should have demonstrated the power of such a bomb in a remote area first.It is alittle too PC for me.That is all,not a big deal because I think you are right about everything else you brought up.

[abelcainsbrother]

I think America's williness to use an atomic bomb, and not simply that, but rather conduct tests thereafter at places like Bakini Atoll which ruined the people there who trusted the good 'ol US of A -- that there is in fact a prevaling superiority complex that the US as a whole.

This dehumanises other nations, which are full of people, often considered by many as an, "oh, but they're over in that side of the world which is a craphole anyway." Like that is justification for taking advantage in whatever way we can to further our own Western nations.

The extent of such nationalistic pride, which I'd otherwise encourage in any nation, I see as being in direct opposition against an Imago Dei theology. That is, an understanding of all human beings being made in the image of God, no matter where they are located, the colour of their skin, or what nation they grew up in or belong to. It is this dehumanisation of others that is inherent in an extreme Nationalism, and that is immoral and can pull out the rug from a love your neighbour (someone in another nation) as yourself.

One can take pride in their country for many positive things. I guess, like I previously mentioned Phil, there's nothing wrong with pride in moderation, same with nationalistic pride. But, when its used like by the Japanese to think themselves a supreme race, or by Nazi Germany in some master race, or America who believe it is their right to reign supreme and do as they please in places like the Middle East no matter the cost to others, then such falls out of sync with Christ, His teachings, and also an understanding of Christ's Church which is comprised of a people without boundaries.

I think the rest of the world under-estimates how we Americans feel and they take it the wrong way that we have patriotism and even nationalistic pride in the US.I mean the American people themselves have been appalled at the direction our country has been going in for a very long time,so much so that it was hard to be patriotic.

I mean liberalism has done so much damage to America that it was hard to feel patriotic toward America but we always prayed that things would change and it seems they are now with Trump as the President. It really seems like we are finally cleaning up the mess left by liberalism and neocons in our government.

I think that alot of Americans bought in to the idea of this "War on Terrorism" after 9/11 and we really thought we were doing it for the right reasons,meddling in the Middle east,like Iraq,etc. But overtime we have come to realize that we were decieved.

You see the American people are proud that we have the most powerful Military on earth but we really want to use that power for good,like a Super Hero to protect us and our friends and allies and we don't like the idea of using our military to fight proxy wars in the Middle East or anywhere really.

We want to use the power we have for good like a Super Hero that rescues you if/when you need it,like Super Man.

Yet we know our power has been abused but we could do nothing at the time to change anything and we now have the chance to change things and to get back to using our military for good instead of bad for money-hungry "neocons" in our Goverment who make money off of fighting wars and it has absolutely nothing to do with keeping America safe or our allies,but money. We are now changing things for the better and so we hope the rest of the world acknowledges it and even forgives us.

[Philip]

ACB: First off,I said alittle too PC for me.Overall,I agree with your take on it but it just bothered me a tad-bit with you suggesting that perhpas we should have demonstrated the power of such a bomb in a remote area first.It is alittle too PC for me.

ACB, PC is just going along with the crowd, being afraid to go against popular opinion. And considering a demonstration was so "PC" that Truman considered it. And probably the PC view of the era would have been something along the lines of, "Lets kill as many Japanese as possible!" But YOU think it's PC to consider and alternative to dropping such a horrendous bomb upon a huge civilian population of non-combatants, babies, women and children? As a Christian, we are to show compassion where and whenever we can. Pure military or military industrial targets are understandable to target.

Was the Marshall Plan also too PC for you?

[abelcainsbrother]

ACB: First off,I said alittle too PC for me.Overall,I agree with your take on it but it just bothered me a tad-bit with you suggesting that perhpas we should have demonstrated the power of such a bomb in a remote area first.It is alittle too PC for me.

ACB, PC is just going along with the crowd, being afraid to go against popular opinion. And considering a demonstration was so "PC" that Truman considered it. And probably the PC view of the era would have been something along the lines of, "Lets kill as many Japanese as possible!" But YOU think it's PC to consider and alternative to dropping such a horrendous bomb upon a huge civilian population of non-combatants, babies, women and children? As a Christian, we are to show compassion where and whenever we can. Pure military or military industrial targets are understandable to target.

Was the Marshall Plan also too PC for you?

Sorry,but I do still think it was political correctness trying to get involved in a war.Just imagine the money and lives saved if we had did that first.The war would have been over much sooner with alot less lives lost and money and it would've sent a message to not attack the US or you will suffer or it.Remember Pearl Harbor was bombed first.We would have been alot safer. But war is ugly no matter how we look at it and examine it.

[RickD]

ACB: First off,I said alittle too PC for me.Overall,I agree with your take on it but it just bothered me a tad-bit with you suggesting that perhpas we should have demonstrated the power of such a bomb in a remote area first.It is alittle too PC for me.

ACB, PC is just going along with the crowd, being afraid to go against popular opinion. And considering a demonstration was so "PC" that Truman considered it. And probably the PC view of the era would have been something along the lines of, "Lets kill as many Japanese as possible!" But YOU think it's PC to consider and alternative to dropping such a horrendous bomb upon a huge civilian population of non-combatants, babies, women and children? As a Christian, we are to show compassion where and whenever we can. Pure military or military industrial targets are understandable to target.

Was the Marshall Plan also too PC for you?

Sorry,but I do still think it was political correctness trying to get involved in a war.Just imagine the money and lives saved if we had did that first.The war would have been over much sooner with alot less lives lost and money and it would've sent a message to not attack the US or you will suffer or it.Remember Pearl Harbor was bombed first.We would have been alot safer. But war is ugly no matter how we look at it and examine it.

Pearl Harbor was a military target, with an estimated 3700 American casualties, of which 48-68 were civilian.

An estimated 192,000 lives were lost as a result of the bombing of Hiroshima. The majority were civilians.