Presumably it would only be on the landing force which has stormed an isolated beachhead? With collateral damage that's a different scenario. I'm just trying to simplify.

Evolution shapes our brains to survive which is not necessarily what is right or rational.

“If you crush a cockroach, you're a hero. If you crush a beautiful butterfly, you're a villain. Morals have aesthetic criteria.” - Nietzsche

The laws haven't been made in a vacuum without knowledge of actual warfare. If you know the laws, it should be evident that it doesn't limit the way to destroy the enemy combatants. — ssu

We're dealing with a hypothetical here posed by @RogueAI. Nor do rules created in the 1920s always maintain the same character that they did as years go on. These rules were created in the 20s, so I ask: Was it ok to use in WWI? I'll readily admit that gas is a nasty weapon and not something that I would use on the battlefield unless extraordinary circumstances. But I would say this qualifies as one.

In this scenario your country's (UK) beachfront is being stormed by Nazis. Intel says gas would be extremely effective - perhaps because they're not wearing gas protection or perhaps because a new type of gas has been synthesized.

There's also conventional means of resistance but we're not given much info as to Britain's capability here and we could envision a wide number of scenarios from futile to easily being able to ward them off. Obviously the more futile potential resistance is the greater the attraction is towards using gas. But the UK has lost air superiority here.

In broad strokes though, if a large Nazi invading force combined with air superiority landed on the British beachfront in '43 or '44 and I (the Prime minister) learned that gas would be extremely effective and I used it and it did prove extremely effective would I feel vindicated? Yes. My first responsibility is to my people and my country is in imminent danger. Not my first choice of weapon, but if my hand is forced I'll use it.

If the invading force was small I would not use it though. I am only talking a very large, very serious invading force that would surely successfully invade otherwise.

You now need to either point out why it is irrational, or give a more rational reason to try to lose the bias. — AmadeusD

It's irrational for a few reasons.

In-group bias is common among humans. As humans we have an inborn bias towards our own race/ethnic group. We all work to undo that unless we just want to embrace it and embrace racism.

Speciesism is the same deal. Peter Singer talks about this. Species of animals are just different forms of being, one is no higher than the other.

What bloody objective reality are you talking about? The one in which we actually have biases towards other humans?? — AmadeusD

The one that we both agreed upon for this dialogue -- that humans have no objective value above that of a cockroach. That it's all just our minds favoring our own kind.

Presumably in this reality there's still fallacies though, right? Like the gambler's fallacy? Probability still has a truth to it. Again, we typically try to rid our thinking of these improper elements.

I'm just running with your version of truth here.

Do you believe there's better and worse ways to interpret a text whether be e.g. Cicero or a Buddhist text?

Jews have the Talmud for guidance on this, btw. Interpretations are discussed for ~3 centuries.

Tell that to the millions who used faith and notions of goodness to justify their projects. — Tom Storm

Sure, ok. But you're deflecting here. My point is that it is utterly absurd for a devout Nazi to declare himself a "good Christian." The Nazi is outside the fold.

Peopel use scripture to justify any practice, in all religions in all countries. — Tom Storm

There may be multiple plausible interpretations but there are other interpretations that are completely implausible and therefore flatly wrong. "Open to interpretation" doesn't mean all interpretations are valid.

It is reality. I have asked you to put forward something that either discusses, or displaces this. — AmadeusD

I am discussing it.

See the descriptive/prescriptive distinction. On a descriptive level we have a pro-same species bias. That says zero about whether it should be maintained rationally.

Typically we learn about cognitive biases in order to unlearn them & improve our thinking.

It's like if I were to say "well humans naturally have confirmation bias, what's the problem?" Well, we naturally try to unlearn that to get our thinking more in line with objective reality.

And the reality in this case is that there is no objective reason for preferring a human over a cockroach.

"But what about subjective reasons?"

I don't care. I seek to act in accordance with objective reality and if that gets you mad then anger is derived from an irrational source.

And in fairness, this is also where a Christian or religious worldviews can lead you. I remember talking to a couple of elderly former Nazi's back in the early 1990's. They were good Christians, of course. Lutherans, as it happened. They calmly described Jewish folk as cockroaches (as per the Nazi propaganda) - and were sure God would be good with that. — Tom Storm

Tom, these are not good Christians. "All Jews are cockroaches" necessitates that Jesus is a cockroach. :sweat:

One can believe themselves to be a good Christian. One can call themselves, outwardly (and even maybe inwardly) a good Christian. But none of that makes one a good Christian.

Religious nihilism along with a cavalier disregard for the 'sacredness of human life seems to be part of the practices of many religions. — Tom Storm

I'm not talking practice. I'm talking Scripture.

Yes, it's just another bias. There's a million of them that we have and we generally strive to overcome these cognitive biases in our thinking.

If our natural pro-human bias is not accordance with reality and is just another cognitive bias then I will seek to unlearn it like I do with other cognitive biases. I only seek to act in accordance with true reality. I don't see the problem. Save 100 cockroaches or 100 babies? Who cares -- flip a coin, I guess.

I generally prefer to believe and act in accordance with (my perceived) reality, but whatever your floats your boat.

Without invoking God, tell me why you'd think otherwise? Or is the case that you are encased in a religious framework to such a degree that you cannot fathom other thoughts? — AmadeusD

I'm quite capable of thinking atheistically.

If so we're on the same page then -- no objective reason for valuing human life over cockroach life. We just have that bias because we're humans but it's not grounded in anything objective.

I read you loud and clear. We can go down that road. See where it takes us.

I'm curious, what do you see as the main differences between the original sect headed by Jesus and Paul's take on things? I see Paul as making certain inferences and elaborating/expanding on Jesus's ideas in his own ways. There's the Jesus layer and then the Paul layer.

extract himself from this rotten game of states, and search for greener, less homicidal pastures. — Tzeentch

He could abdicate and go to the English countryside, and a few weeks later him and the undesirables of his countrymen will be rounded up and likely murdered. Someone must lead, even if there are no states this remains true. Tribes had leaders. Kingdoms had leaders. Poor or lack of leadership historically frequently results in one's people being decimated or conquered.

But by all means be "moral" and go frolic away in the countryside while stronger organized forces seek domination.

You got me, 180. I would have been a Nazi in the 40s. :up: :rofl:

And you would have been a klansman in the 20s. :rofl:

Interesting that you mention Galatians as opposed to Romans regarding Paul's complete thinking. Yes, I also don't see Paul as anti-semitic seeing as he was Jewish and Pharisaic. But his thinking as you mentioned likely inspired some measure of antisemitism.

Could it not have been both? That he was both an evangelist who was serious about spreading Xtianity and reasonably saw circumcision and dietary laws as a hindrance to that end and that he was sincere in his views that Jesus was God and that salvation occurred through faith in him? That the law shines a light on our wrongdoings and that we all fall short of it and that grace makes up the difference? That breaking even one makes one a lawbreaker?

gThomas lends further credence to Paul's disregard for circumcision. J's own words in the gospels regarding purity cast doubt on the applicability of Jewish/Pharisaic dietary laws. In any case, Paul is going to need a lot of grace and a lot of faith (at least according to a traditional Jewish view) -- I always found it very notable that it someone such as him would receive the revelation on the road to Damascus.

you find that there were "political" "scriptural" "religious" motivators in the writing.

Yes.

The opponents to that movement were portrayed deliberately accordingly.

Yes, unfortunately for the members of that movement and those who inherited the traditions of that movement.

I think your comments about Luke and ff, if understood in the context above, reveals that the early church, far from being antisemitic, were carrying on a Jewish tradition, opposing, not Judaism nor the Jewish race, just their "political" opponents in the Sanhedrin.

I'll have to dig more into the history on this one. So Luke was written around 80-90 AD I don't know the extent to which the Sanhedrin was opposing or dealing with the Early Church in those days.

It is quite clear that this is a complete non sequitur. — AmadeusD

So you think life and death decisions re: human life should be made lightly (i.e. that it is an unserious matter)? It's not like it's sacred. Who's to say humans are worth more than cockroaches? This is where your worldview leads you.

The problem is, there's no fact of the matter what morality is and how it comes about.

We now have people trying to convince people who are categorically opposed to certain immoral actions because they seem to be incapable of grasping that for some people certain aspects of morality are immutable.

Interesting tension here. You say there's no fact of the matter about what morality is, yet you hold immutable opinions towards it. :chin:

It's like you're saying "there's no fact of the matter as to what morality is, yet its character is immutable."

Ok, it's a matter of which moral bullet you bite. Use an ugly weapon or turn over your countrymen to death when you could have prevented it.

But probably more importantly, performing immoral acts would diminish my own humanity. — Benkei

Well, in this situation you've got Nazis storming an English beach head after already establishing air superiority.

So you can either try to kill them or let them take over.

Presumably you choose "resistance by other means" which sacrifices many more English lives but avoids breaking international war laws.

What if conventional means were sure to lead to failure against the upcoming Nazi onslaught? Would you continue with the futile resistance?

It's really just a matter of which bullet you bite.

I think if we sent you (and anyone else who voted "no") back in time as Churchill in my scenario, you would do whatever you had to to stop the Nazi's from invading. — RogueAI

Unfortunately I think quite a few of them would have been Nazis or sympathizers in the 40s.

The Nazis did have their rationale and we can examine that, but when it comes down to it the Nazis (and some other groups) would murder me on the spot purely for my identity so you can be sure I'll be advocating for that gas attack as well as virtually any method necessary to destroy them. I don't have the luxury of "well, let's dispassionately analyze their reasons" given my identity.

Call it shallow thinking, but I don't really tend to devote much thought to ideologies which if followed necessitate my death and the deaths of those who share the same identity markers.

Once you are an adult, God is going to see your heart and see if you sinned mortally for sake of evil itself, or if you just made a mistake, and what's more, if you say "sorry" he will forgive you immediately even a "mortal" sin. — Fire Ologist

There's a lot to repentance both in Judaism and Catholicism. I'd like to believe it's that simple.

I believe the purpose of hell, Gehenna, is purification. There the full repentance takes place. Our sinful selves are very often not fit to be in God's presence immediately after death so we must undergo purification before reunion with God. I don't believe in eternal hell.

I don't know whether an internal apology truly covers everything. Murder a few hundred, apologize afterwards -- "we're in the clear!" The murderer won't see the true scope of what he did. That's what I like to think hell is -- the true realization/understanding of one's actions. God may be love, but he is also justice.

And absolutely repent here on Earth as well. Gehenna will be granted out of love. The truly irredeemable will be annihilated.

If committing war crimes against people that use war crimes as an everyday weapon is the only viable method of stopping them from continuing their evil ways, then fucking well stop them. — Sir2u

:100:

Poison gas only becomes a war crime in the 1920s due to international agreement, so presumably before that it was acceptable.

Shhh "do no harm" remember?

Atheists who spend considerable amounts of time or mental energy lording their atheism over theists are invariably idiots. The state of education in the US has backslide as race hustlers and DEI have made discrimination and hateful rhetoric against some ethnic groups acceptable while others have untouchable victim status.

Scripture teaches us that technological/social progress does not necessarily coincide with the elevation of humanity/spiritual progress (see the Tower of Babel). In other words, that these are two different things. Religion can be regressive, of course, since religion is much more than just Scripture -- religion is also extremely broad making it an easy target. But I think the fundamental scriptural lesson is sound -- a society can be very technologically advanced yet be essentially insane or operating from a very wicked morality. In modernity it is tempting to see progress purely in terms of technology.

"Unrepented mortal sin leads to hell" - Catholic tradition.

Do not give what is holy to the dogs; nor cast your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you in pieces.

@180 Proof

And how does "an important belief" deter ... suicide? — 180 Proof

Do I look like your Sunday school teacher? Do you want me to assign you reading? I'd wash your mouth out with soap before anything. No need to bring up martyrdom here.

through providing a sense of purpose and empowerment. fear can work too.

Faith is an important belief.

Suppose Germany had won the Battle of Britain and then launched an invasion of England. Churchill authorizes the use of poison gas and it becomes a decisive factor in repelling the Nazi invasion. — RogueAI

If poison gas is necessary to win then use it - absolutely. Churchill's responsibility is to his countrymen and to the state of the world.

Poison gas was legal in WWI. So presumably it was fine then. The international community came together and banned it in the 1920s because it was a nasty weapon. I have no issue with that, but if the entire world is at stake of being absorbed by a genocidal regime that's a completely different issue.

.

I believe that faith is a deterrent against suicide.

But maybe it's all wrong and it should be ignored and that in reality the idea that human life has value is really just a fiction or to be decided purely by the individual. So if you feel depressed or in pain why not commit suicide to stop it? It would be super effective. Who's to say human life is worth more than pigs or insects? Is that the type of society you'd like to live in?

That right? All the time the majority of the people believed in God, none of them killed any other? — Vera Mont

In the Netherlands today they are allowing a healthy woman to euthanize herself because is depressed. Personal autonomy trumps all.

Don't you have some Jews to bar from campus? Don't forget your armband.

Its completely impossible to reconcile it with anything we know about suffering and death. — AmadeusD

What is it that we know about those two, especially death? Next to nothing -- only that it is inevitable. Could be a good thing, could be a bad thing, could be neutral. Accordingly, we generally leave those decisions to a power beyond ourselves.

God tells us life is sacred. Remove God and life can lose its sanctity quickly.

I don't like either.

:up: This thread has long outlived its usefulness. You roll around in the mud enough dealing with Hamas-sympathizers, antisemites, etc. -- you're going to get dirty and it can drag you down. Thanks for the reminder.

EDIT: But the more I research the more I realize that Hamas is straight from hell. There was a jubilance to the 10/7 murderers. Unfortunately on 10/7 palestinian civilians and even unrwa partook. Comparisons to Nazis or Amalek are warranted. Not even the Nazis were jubilant. Societies can be sick.