God and Suffering

[Christosfer]

Landlord,


It seems to me that the crux of your "argument" is that in order for people to know the difference between right and wrong, there must be some external (that is, non-human) standard by which to measure the rightness and wrongness of human actions.

My long-winded prior post was an attempt to demonstrate that if we do not know that standard (that is, to use your words, if we merely know that it exists, but do not know what it requires), we are not in a significantly different position than if we don't know that it exists. Instead of fashioning opinions about morality (as, I guess you would say, relativists), we fashion opinions about the absolute morality dictated by God, which, you and I appear to agree, we do not know. Either way, we make it up as we go along. The only difference is that you say, "God says this is the Right thing to do" while I say "I think this is the right thing to do."

I enjoy reading your posts, you have a way of seeing the issue that I appreciate.
I see the issue of the moral law slightly differently than what has been stated here in there postings. It is not to me the particular rights and wrongs that seem to be written on the human heart that suggest a moral law giver, but that we must appeal to a moral authority if we are to suggest that something is right or wrong. I can appeal to jurisprudence to suggest that something is wrong of course, but that does not make it wrong necessarily. Murder is not wrong because Gov't passed a law, Gov't passed a law because murder is wrong. We go down a very slippery road if we assume that morality is created by man. Genocide may be wrong today, but tomorrow it may be found to be a cultural convention that suits the needs of people everywhere.
I would also like to point you to C.S. Lewis argument for the moral law in the first chapter of Mere Christianity. In short, people argue all the time that this person was wrong when they did this or that to me. The acused does not reply by saying, "I don't care about your standard", but they make exceptions for themselves in a particular instance because they had good cause.

[shanbaum]

...but that we must appeal to a moral authority if we are to suggest that something is right or wrong. I can appeal to jurisprudence to suggest that something is wrong of course, but that does not make it wrong necessarily. Murder is not wrong because Gov't passed a law, Gov't passed a law because murder is wrong.

I would say that we pass laws against murder because we don't want people to do it. The underlying motivation may be (and probably is) mixed - some of us believe that God says it's wrong, so we shouldn't let people do it; some of us believe that the world will be a happier place if there's less rather than more murder, so we punish those who commit it to deter others from doing so (or lock up the perpetrators so they can't do it again).

Either way (where the motivator is God, or utility), the practical effect is exactly the same.

The fact is, the morality of killing has changed over time. Most of the world no longer imposes the death penalty. The U.S. no longer executes people for crimes that do not involve a death, and no longer executes minors, like we used to do, not long ago. One could say, well, we're just bringing our laws more in line with absolute morality - or, one could say (like Chip will) that the changes move us further from it. We might only be one Supreme Court appointment from moving back in the other direction, so, if there's a slippery slope here, I don't know which way it slants.

I don't understand Lewis' point. A defendant who argues that "I don't care about the law" isn't likely to succeed. But defendants do occasionally argue that a law targeting them is wrong (that is, unconstitutional, which might mean, "immoral") and sometimes, they prevail.

[1968]

Please pay attention. Never once have I suggested that I demonstrate proper conduct while others do not.

I think it is you that need to pay attention, so I'll refresh your memory. You wrote: “Morality was a perfectly good word until the moral relativists came along. You are obviously one of them.” The suggestion in this particular instance is not “I demonstrate proper conduct while others do not”; the suggestion is that the definition of “morality” has somehow been twisted by those with whom you disagree. It has not.

The debate I am currently in consists of one main question. "Is there an absolute morality or not?" Any other debate is premature and meaningless until this question is at least explored.

There is at least one question that precedes that particular question. “Is there an absolute morality or not?” can be rephrased like this: “Is proper conduct determined by God?” As I alluded to in post #49, this begs the question, “Does God exist?” In my experience, it is futile to debate whether or not God exists with someone who disagrees with you. Perhaps it has happened, but I’ve never seen anyone’s mind changed in such a debate. Consequently, in debates such as these, everyone feels that they are more objective (i.e. more in tune with reality or that which exists) than the person or persons with whom they disagree. With that in mind, we are at a stalemate in that each of us thinks we are approaching this issue more objectively than the other.

difficult and impossible are two very different things.

Great! We’ve come to an agreement that objectivity is possible. Now we only need to resolve the idea that you are the only one capable of objectivity.

I am not arrogant. My desire to forge the truth by debating with you and Shanbaum is much stronger than my desire to be right. All I want is evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that points to the truth. What irritates me is people who cannot get off the fence.

First of all, I prefer it when you insult me directly instead of passive-aggressively. Secondly, recognizing that objectivity can be difficult (as you yourself noted that it can be) does not make one a “fence sitter”, however, insisting that it is easy is indeed arrogant.

[1968]

Suffice it to say that the Tralfamadorians might be really amused by our explanation of why things fall.

I love how you always seem to post something that I need to look up!

I believe that Beer and Pizza are the most perfect foods.

And they're even better when watching football!

IWe go down a very slippery road if we assume that morality is created by man.

If "morality" refers to proper conduct in the face of choices, it makes sense that man has to think and act rationally to make proper choices. You seem to be cautioning us that man is not capable of acting rationally. Accepting such a premise will likely lead down a slippery slope.

[chip anderson]

This has nothing to do with God and Suffering or God's Statements on morality but since you brought up laws about murder.
Anyone wonder why killing a policeman or a politician is a greater crime than killing a skid-row bum?
At sentancing and parole hearings it seems to matter what the bereaved or offended has to say?
Whether or not the criminal "feels remorse" or not seems to effect the sentance?
What difference does it make how the victum's relatives feel? What difference does the perpetrator's remorse matter? The victum is still dead or whatever happened to him. The bad guy still did it whether he says he's sorry or not.

Just courious on your views on this.

And yes, I am familiar with Christ's views on forgivenes. And think one of the worst passages in the Bible is Christ's forgiving the murderer on the Cross. The reason I think this is bad is too many Christians seem to think that if they have the right attitude or say the right thing at the last minite they can behave any way they want until that last minite.

Today is judgement day. Yesterday was judgement day. Tomarrow will be judgement day.

Chip

[Christosfer]

I would say that we pass laws against murder because we don't want people to do it. The underlying motivation may be (and probably is) mixed - some of us believe that God says it's wrong, so we shouldn't let people do it; some of us believe that the world will be a happier place if there's less rather than more murder, so we punish those who commit it to deter others from doing so (or lock up the perpetrators so they can't do it again).

Either way (where the motivator is God, or utility), the practical effect is exactly the same.

The fact is, the morality of killing has changed over time. Most of the world no longer imposes the death penalty. The U.S. no longer executes people for crimes that do not involve a death, and no longer executes minors, like we used to do, not long ago. One could say, well, we're just bringing our laws more in line with absolute morality - or, one could say (like Chip will) that the changes move us further from it. We might only be one Supreme Court appointment from moving back in the other direction, so, if there's a slippery slope here, I don't know which way it slants.

I don't understand Lewis' point. A defendant who argues that "I don't care about the law" isn't likely to succeed. But defendants do occasionally argue that a law targeting them is wrong (that is, unconstitutional, which might mean, "immoral") and sometimes, they prevail.

I would differentiate between killing and murder, murder ascribes a moral premise where as killing does not always. Also, I would clarify that murder is not wrong just because God says so, but because God created us and holds his creation in very high value. Therefore, because we have value to the owner we should take care. I know that there is some issue then with killing after I made the distinction, but murder implies a moral pretense is my point. I am not arguing for killing. I am saying that the terms are different.

Lewis was not speaking in terms of legal matters. The examples that he gives are things like sharing, cutting in line, taking someone's seat etc.

[Christosfer]

If "morality" refers to proper conduct in the face of choices, it makes sense that man has to think and act rationally to make proper choices. You seem to be cautioning us that man is not capable of acting rationally. Accepting such a premise will likely lead down a slippery slope.

I would say that you are making a moral argument in your statement by saying that rational thinking is good. By what measure can you say "proper choices"?
What evidence do you have that we act rationally?

[1968]

I would say that you are making a moral argument in your statement by saying that rational thinking is good. By what measure can you say "proper choices"?

The statement “rational thinking is good” is indeed an assertion of a moral position. To complete the context: “If one chooses to live, then rational thinking is good.” As I’ve stated multiple times earlier, “life” is the standard or measure. If you do not choose to live, then there is no need to have a moral code for any other choice. All you need to do is die.

What evidence do you have that we act rationally?

Are you asking this from the standpoint that people are incapable of acting rationally? If so, then people would be incapable of following any moral code. If not, then why would you bother asking the question?

[LandLord]

“Is there an absolute morality or not?” can be rephrased like this: “Is proper conduct determined by God?”

Where's your logic? How can you decide that the absolute moral authority is God if you can't even decide there is an absolute morality???!!!

in debates such as these, everyone feels that they are more objective (i.e. more in tune with reality or that which exists) than the person or persons with whom they disagree.

You are obviously speaking for yourself, but not for me. I don't think I am more objective. You seem to be trying to prove me arrogant and narrow-minded, while I am trying to explore whether or not morality is absolute. Right now it appears that way. Please use logic and reason and stick to the issue.

recognizing that objectivity can be difficult (as you yourself noted that it can be) does not make one a “fence sitter”, however, insisting that it is easy is indeed arrogant.

Not taking a firm stance makes one a fence sitter, fence sitter. No one here is completely objective. That's why we must use logic to compensate for our biases.

[1968]

Where's your logic? How can you decide that the absolute moral authority is God if you can't even decide there is an absolute morality???!!!

I did not decide that God is the absolute moral authority. YOU did. I was paraphrasing your question based on your other assertions in this thread. If you want me to step you through my logic, the gist of it went something like this:

1) You wrote: “The debate I am currently in consists of one main question. ‘Is there an absolute morality or not?’ Any other debate is premature and meaningless until this question is at least explored.”

2) I observed that you asked: “Is there an absolute morality or not?”

3) I observed that you asserted: “Any other debate is premature and meaningless until this question is at least explored.”

4) I thought: “The premise in the question is that there is an absolute authority that determines what is right and what is wrong.”

5) I asked myself: “Hmmm. What is the ‘absolute authority’ to which he is referring?”

6) I thought: “Anthropomorphically speaking, reality is the only ‘authority’ for determining an objective standard by which to measure right and wrong.”

7) I thought: “According to everything else he has said, I’m pretty sure that he doesn’t agree with me.”

8) I asked myself: “What does he think?”

9) I remembered: “He stated, ‘God’, when asked the source of his moral standards.”

10) I thought: “Ah, this is a rhetorical question. He already believes that proper conduct is established by God.”

11) I asked myself: “Don’t we need to ask ourselves whether or not God exists prior to asserting that God is the source of our moral standards? And wouldn’t that contradict his assertion that answering whether or not absolute morality exists precedes any other question?”

12) I thought: “Yes, that is a contradiction. Let’s rephrase his rhetorical question a little more plainly to help demonstrate that point.”

13) I typed: “’Is there an absolute morality or not?’ can be rephrased like this: ‘Is proper conduct determined by God?’ As I alluded to in post #49, this begs the question, ‘Does God exist?’”

You are obviously speaking for yourself, but not for me. I don't think I am more objective. You seem to be trying to prove me arrogant and narrow-minded, while I am trying to explore whether or not morality is absolute. Right now it appears that way. Please use logic and reason and stick to the issue.

Amen. As I see it, you’ve been trying to prove others to be arbitrary and narrow minded.

You have already asserted that you know morality is absolute, so forgive me if I am skeptical that your line of question in this discussion has been simply to discover the truth. Similarly, you have asserted that a belief in God is necessary to have an objective standard of what is right and what is wrong, and you have asserted that those who do not believe in God do not have an objective standard of what is right and what is wrong. If you are retracting the assertion that you are more objective (i.e. more in tune with reality or that which exists), then push no longer comes to shove.

Not taking a firm stance makes one a fence sitter, fence sitter. No one here is completely objective. That's why we must use logic to compensate for our biases.

On what issue has someone not taken a firm stance? I firmly believe that what is black and what is white exist and I firmly believe that determining what is black and what is white is not as easy as you have postulated.

[LandLord]

I did not decide that God is the absolute moral authority. YOU did. I was paraphrasing your question based on your other assertions in this thread. If you want me to step you through my logic, the gist of it went something like this:

1) You wrote: “The debate I am currently in consists of one main question. ‘Is there an absolute morality or not?’ Any other debate is premature and meaningless until this question is at least explored.”

2) I observed that you asked: “Is there an absolute morality or not?”

3) I observed that you asserted: “Any other debate is premature and meaningless until this question is at least explored.”

4) I thought: “The premise in the question is that there is an absolute authority that determines what is right and what is wrong.”

5) I asked myself: “Hmmm. What is the ‘absolute authority’ to which he is referring?”

6) I thought: “Anthropomorphically speaking, reality is the only ‘authority’ for determining an objective standard by which to measure right and wrong.”

7) I thought: “According to everything else he has said, I’m pretty sure that he doesn’t agree with me.”

8) I asked myself: “What does he think?”

9) I remembered: “He stated, ‘God’, when asked the source of his moral standards.”

10) I thought: “Ah, this is a rhetorical question. He already believes that proper conduct is established by God.”

11) I asked myself: “Don’t we need to ask ourselves whether or not God exists prior to asserting that God is the source of our moral standards? And wouldn’t that contradict his assertion that answering whether or not absolute morality exists precedes any other question?”

12) I thought: “Yes, that is a contradiction. Let’s rephrase his rhetorical question a little more plainly to help demonstrate that point.”

13) I typed: “’Is there an absolute morality or not?’ can be rephrased like this: ‘Is proper conduct determined by God?’ As I alluded to in post #49, this begs the question, ‘Does God exist?’”

Amen. As I see it, you’ve been trying to prove others to be arbitrary and narrow minded.

You have already asserted that you know morality is absolute, so forgive me if I am skeptical that your line of question in this discussion has been simply to discover the truth. Similarly, you have asserted that a belief in God is necessary to have an objective standard of what is right and what is wrong, and you have asserted that those who do not believe in God do not have an objective standard of what is right and what is wrong. If you are retracting the assertion that you are more objective (i.e. more in tune with reality or that which exists), then push no longer comes to shove.

On what issue has someone not taken a firm stance? I firmly believe that what is black and what is white exist and I firmly believe that determining what is black and what is white is not as easy as you have postulated.

Ok, got it. Now can we get out of the endless "you said this, I did not say this" loop? Thanks.

[1968]

Ok, got it. Now can we get out of the endless "you said this, I did not say this" loop? Thanks.

Yup. You can get on with "exploring" that what you already know to be true.

[LandLord]

It seems to me that the crux of your "argument" is that in order for people to know the difference between right and wrong, there must be some external (that is, non-human) standard by which to measure the rightness and wrongness of human actions.

Yes, sir. You are very close. If right and wrong are not mere opinion, but absolute, then to know an absolute fact, there must be a reference other than opinion.

My long-winded prior post was an attempt to demonstrate that if we do not know that standard (that is, to use your words, if we merely know that it exists, but do not know what it requires), we are not in a significantly different position than if we don't know that it exists.

I agree. But I disagree that we cannot know the true standard. We can. It's called reasonable doubt. For example, how do you know that you will not live forever? You cannot prove it absolutely, but reasonable doubt tells you so.

Instead of fashioning opinions about morality (as, I guess you would say, relativists), we fashion opinions about the absolute morality dictated by God, which, you and I appear to agree, we do not know.

No, I don't agree. God's word can be known.

Either way, we make it up as we go along. The only difference is that you say, "God says this is the Right thing to do" while I say "I think this is the right thing to do."

If there is no God, then your method will suffice. But what if there is a God?

You want there to be a moral law analogous to physical laws. But consider that gravity is not a law, but a scientific theory (and not a particularly old one), devised by human minds, in an effort to explain observed physical phenomena. Absent humans (and therefore, absent math), the notion of a gravitational constant is meaningless.

It's true about our theories, but regardless of humans, gravity's effect is unchanged.

I tried to give you an example of a factual situation in which absolutes conflict. The very notion of one "absolute" conflicting with another makes my head hurt; it makes me suspect the absoluteness of both. It doesn't seem right that the Right thing to do can vary from one factual situation to another. We've all heard lots of these - you know, four guys in a boat with enough supplies for three; the one I provided earlier, etc. If the answer is, sometimes you kill the mother, and sometimes you kill the child, what kind of "absolute" is that? Can there be a different absolute for each factual situation? Does that mean that new absolutes arise as new factual situations do?

You may be confusing absolute morality with good, better and best. They are not the same.

The simple example you gave is not particularly instructive. Yes, it seems wrong to strangle the old lady. But I'm reminded (though not very clearly) of a passage in the Koran where an angel accompanying a man kills someone, and the man is shocked, and thinks maybe the angel is an evil person. The angel commits a few more acts that seem wrong, but in the end, it turns out that each of the acts was justified by facts of which the man was not aware, but which of course were known to Allah and the jinn. Of what practical significance are such absolutes, that by definition, aren't known to man? Whether they exist or not, man is left guessing. Of course, in the story from the Koran, the angel eventually reveals himself to the man, so the man knows the truth. The problem with your story is, there's no angel; maybe the old lady had it coming, and it was God's will.

I will concede that there are many different confusing situations in the world. However, they do not negate absolute morality.

It could be that your claim is really psychological in nature - that is, you think that we simply couldn't have any meaningful, internal sense of right and wrong in the absence of some extra-human source. In that case, you're just saying that it couldn't be built-in otherwise. I suppose that's really a different aspect of the issue. I don't see any reason to believe that humans could not have developed a sense of right and wrong analogous to our sense of cold and hot. It's clearly a more complex sense, so much so that I'm tempted to say it's a different kind of sense. I do not, however, agree with the notion that it is "irreducibly complex". Is a conscience more complicated than an eye (or for that matter, the brain of a mouse)?

You raise a valid point, and I am open to considering it.

[chip anderson]

If God is God (and I am sure there He is), he can change even gravity any time he wishes. God does not have to obey the laws of physics.

Chip

[cocoisland58]

This has nothing to do with God and Suffering or God's Statements on morality but since you brought up laws about murder.
Anyone wonder why killing a policeman or a politician is a greater crime than killing a skid-row bum?
At sentancing and parole hearings it seems to matter what the bereaved or offended has to say?
Whether or not the criminal "feels remorse" or not seems to effect the sentance?
What difference does it make how the victum's relatives feel? What difference does the perpetrator's remorse matter? The victum is still dead or whatever happened to him. The bad guy still did it whether he says he's sorry or not.

Just courious on your views on this.

And yes, I am familiar with Christ's views on forgivenes. And think one of the worst passages in the Bible is Christ's forgiving the murderer on the Cross. The reason I think this is bad is too many Christians seem to think that if they have the right attitude or say the right thing at the last minite they can behave any way they want until that last minite.

Today is judgement day. Yesterday was judgement day. Tomarrow will be judgement day.

Chip

I believe that killing a policeman or politician is a greater crime simply because our government has made it so. In actuality it is no greater nor worse.

At parole hearings it matters what the victim or bereaved has to say because it allows the victim or the family of the victim to have a say in the matter and to express anger or forgiveness which is part of the healing process.

Remorse may affect a sentencing simply because that is what we want to hear, the same way that a child may be punished by a parent to a lesser extent if he or she is truly sorry.

This is quite simply humanity.

As far as Christ's forgiveness of the murderer on the cross and the fact that some people might believe they can get away with a wrongful life because of it. The answer to that will differ depending on personal belief and denominational teachings. Some trust in "once saved, always saved". Some are hoping for an exteremely merciful God who at the last minute accepts a heartfelt contrition (one would of course have to hope for enough time to do this). Some opt for the belief in some kind of middle ground such as Purgatory wherein they might get a second chance at it. Personally, much as St. Paul did, I stuggle with day to day temptations and pridefulness, I TRY to live a good life, but have sinned as all humans do and will no doubt continue sinning until the day I die. I hope for a forgiving God and if I find a chastising one in the end than so be it and I humbly accept my fate.

The thing about the forgiveness on the cross is this. Here was a man in his death throes who prehaps knew his life had been an evil one. He could not know that hanging next to him was his salvation and yet when he looked upon it he recognized it, asked for it, and was granted it. Therein lies the difference. Someone who has lived a less than stellar life without any knowledge of the possibility of salvation could, at the last moment see his salvation, fall to his knees, and fully realize what he had been. On the other hand, knowledge of salvation ahead of time and choosing to ignore it until the last minute does not garuntee you anything. Salvation is gained and lost on a daily basis.

My views are obviously simplistic when compared to the philosophers on this thread but your questions were food for thought so I gave it a go.

[rinselberg]

I have been taking a class this fall at the college where I am employed. The class meets a general education requirement for my degree. Basically, the class has been an eye opening study about the Holocaust. It has really caused me to sit back and think harder about what I believe about God and about suffering. I am wondering if a few of you would mind sharing your views on this subject. Do you believe that God allowed the holocaust or even caused it? Does the fact that there is suffering cause you to believe that there is no God? I know we aren't going to solve this one, but I am wondering what your views are and how you came to that conclusion. And no Harry, I am not delving into the subject of suffering because the Colts have lost two games in a row. That topic is for another thread! :bbg:

I just caught a remarkable hourlong documentary called Theologians Under Hitler, from a book of the same title. It was broadcast on KCSM, which is a local cable TV channel. This is great documentary without so much as a trace of pretense, self-promotion, sensationalism or hokiness. The musical background is never intrusive or overdone. There are no gratuitous photographs, images or video clips.

A handful of scholars reveal a side of history that I knew very little of: The complicity of what were some of Germany's most respected theologians in the Nazi crimes before and during World War Two; specifically, the Holocaust. Some of these men were prominent clergy. The ones that are documented (there were three main ones) were Protestant.

The film reveals how the historical and theological legacies of both Christ and Martin Luther were "confiscated" and then revised to suit the purposes of the Nazi movement.

I'm not a student of this topic (particularly), but I found the documentary both compelling and highly credible. I think it establishes that without the complicity of a number of high ranking and well known Christian theologians with important university connections, the Holocaust would have been far more difficult (if not impossible) for political radicals like Hitler to have brought about.

This TV segment provided a more complete context and perspective for some other remarks that I posted in the last few days...

• The first Christians and the first Muslims
• Medieval Crusaders vs. Nazis
• Sectarianism, fundamentalism and extremism

Theologians Under Hitler can be had on DVD, but if you see a chance to catch it on one of your TV channels, I highly recommend it.

[gemstone]

The film reveals how the historical and theological legacies of both Christ and Martin Luther were "confiscated" and then revised to suit the purposes of the Nazi movement.

the Holocaust would have been far more difficult (if not impossible) for political radicals like Hitler to have brought about.

I submit, they would have found something else to revise, perhaps Islam.

Thanks for the interesting links.

[chip anderson]

While a fiction work anyone remember the last line from the Seventh Sign?
Appearently many in Germany and German occupied places were not.

Just as someone wrote on Optiboars recently, if the choice were accept Islam or die what would you do? I think the person writing this though accepting Islam was the correct answer. I do not but then many of you think I'm a little different.

Chip

[Bill West]

Exod 3:13-14
13 And Moses said unto God, Behold, when I come unto the children of Israel, and shall say unto them, The God of your fathers hath sent me unto you; and they shall say to me, What is his name? what shall I say unto them?
14 And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you.
(KJV)

[CrunkChipmunk]

There is no god.

Humans are just violent selfish animals at base but despite this we sometimes do kind things just as a lion that gently licks her cubs clean one day and cares for them savagely rips apart a nice zebra that was minding its own business the next.

As for the Holocaust the reasoning that was rejected at the Nuremburg Tribunal of "We were just following orders" is actually valid despite the posturing of the holier than thous who presided over that kangaroo court because the Milgram experiment proved humans in general will do whatever a person dressed up as an authority figure tells them to do.

So they still should of been ruled as guilty but by reason of insanity.

The insanity of being all too human.

[rinselberg]

Kangaroo court . . .

Kangaroo court? What's your beef with the Nuremberg setup? I don't see how they could have been tried under German authority. There wasn't any German authority in 1945. And if they tried to hold the Nuremberg defendants until such time.. who could foresee when that time would come. One committed suicide before the trials began; the other before they could impose the sentence against him. The setup was a little strained because of the Russian attitude(s), but as far as I can see (from the documentaries that I've seen) the only tangible outcome imposed by the Russians was to foist off one of their big KGB atrocities in Poland onto the Nazis. A frameup. Pretty small potatoes, considering all of the charges that were at stake.

Speer, in particular, enjoyed the luxury of excellent defense counsel. The Nuremberg defendants had access to German lawyers as defense counsel. If they had access to money (like Speer) they could hire almost whomever was willing to serve them.

I'm not certain about this--don't have time to look it up right now--but I think that the German admiral "Donuts" (Donitz or Doenitz or something like that) even had an American naval expert testify in his defense. Not sure about it; not sure if it was at Nuremberg or some other legal proceedings.

Still--I don't see why anyone could fairly call that a "kangaroo court".

As usual, I'm also here to hawk some of my latest on line "wares" ... another way to pass some time.

Does anybody really know what time it is? Chicago Transit Authority put that question on a lot of people's minds with their double-platinum recording debut in 1969. Does anybody really know what time is? That's a different question. The berg offers a layman's look at how one group of theoretical physicists is trying to connect the dots in a most intriguing way. If you're in, select ("click") the album art...

[Christosfer]

There is no god.

What is your evidence for that claim?

[LandLord]

It's a quality cover, rins. Is that you on vocals?

[chip anderson]

Wish this idiot would take my name out of his name.

Chip

[LandLord]

There is no god.

Humans are just violent selfish animals at base but despite this we sometimes do kind things just as a lion that gently licks her cubs clean one day and cares for them savagely rips apart a nice zebra that was minding its own business the next.

As for the Holocaust the reasoning that was rejected at the Nuremburg Tribunal of "We were just following orders" is actually valid despite the posturing of the holier than thous who presided over that kangaroo court because the Milgram experiment proved humans in general will do whatever a person dressed up as an authority figure tells them to do.

So they still should of been ruled as guilty but by reason of insanity.

The insanity of being all too human.

You sound a bit cynical, Crunky. But if there is no God, then I guess that means I have no soul?!! I always thought I had a body, mind and soul. If you have no soul, do you also have no mind? Ahhhhh! I think I'm going insane !!!!!