WHOSE SIDE WAS GOD ON IN WW2?

[2Dbunk]

Gott mit uns (God is with us) was stamped on the German soldiers belt buckle in both WW1 and WW2. They lost both wars so their very Christian leaders evidently led their youth down the primrose path to destruction. At the same time here in America God has undoubtedly blessed us also (because we are a Christian country), and we were a significant party to winning both wars. I ask how can the same God be on both sides in such global conflicts? Was one (or both) of these nations dissembling in their gross presumption that God had anything to do with their participation in the two wars?

Seneca, a Roman philosopher, once said: Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful. That was about the time of Christ " the world hasnt learned much in all that time, has it? The common people continue to be led by the nose by rulers who know how to manipulate them.

So, whose side was God on in WW2?

Is this a valid question?

Was Seneca wrong in his pronouncement?

[Aetixintro]

Polls have indicated that non belief in the USA has risen from around 5-7% at the end of the last century, to about 25% now. A rise of about 1% per year this century. At this rate non belief will be the majority opinion by the middle of the century.

What we are witnessing now are the furious but probably futile attempts of religious belief to maintain popular plurality. The trend towards non belief is already well underway in the modern developed countries, however.

Do you bother to add sources for these numbers and claims, please?

[William]

[Replying to William]

Sure. But are you arguing for that option or one of the other 3?

If there is no God, then no God supports no side in a war. Which is effectively no different from option three.

1: GOD is evil and supports all sides of human warfare.

2: GOD is evolving and supports sides which have the best chance of supporting GODs agenda.

3: GOD is good and supports no sides involved in warfare.

4: GOD does not exist to support anything good or evil.

4: is effectively different from option 3:

3:Speaks of GOD which exists and does not support any evil acts of humanity against itself, and is good enough to stay out of that.

There are good guys and winners?

Good and bad are simply opinions.

No. They are definitions of something happening which contradicts the Nurturing of Nature.

It depends on one's point of view.

No. 'One' exists on the planet which is going through a time of judgement regarding the human beings creating evil dramas for themselves. That is not a 'point of view' but a fact.

For example the great Muslim leader Saladin defeated the Crusaders at the Battle of Hattin in 1187, and as a result drove the crusaders out of Palestine and regained control of Jerusalem for Islam. It was widely considered that the bad guys has won by the Christians. The Muslims of course reached exactly the opposite conclusion.

All are the bad guys.

So which side was God on during the crusades?

Neither.

Depends on one's point of view.

If anyone is unable to comprehend that GOD was not on anyone's side, they need only adjust their point of view to the degree necessary to see the obvious. There are options, as listed.

If no God exists to begin with, it is a meaningless question.

Then the question remains vital. It has vitality. It is a legitimate question. It is meaningful.

IF
no God exists to begin with
THEN
"WHOSE SIDE WAS GOD ON IN WW2?" needn't be asked.

Therefore, since it was a question asked, there is a need for it to be asked. There is meaning therein.

Answers therefore need to be found.

I gave the answer that I found, back in the thread.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

[Replying to William]

No. They are definitions of something happening which contradicts the Nurturing of Nature.

The classic example is of a lion killing a baby antelope and then sharing the meal with her cubs. But let's make this even more relevant by indicating that the lion killed a human child and then shared the meal with her cubs. What do you suppose that the opinion of nature is concerning this event?

No. 'One' exists on the planet which is going through a time of judgement regarding the human beings creating evil dramas for themselves. That is not a 'point of view' but a fact.

Except that you just made it up. If you understood history you would be aware that we are currently in one of the most enlightened periods ever in the course of human history. And, yes, there certainly is room for continued improvement. But we have been undergoing continued improvement, so there is much room for hope.

IF
no God exists to begin with
THEN
"WHOSE SIDE WAS GOD ON IN WW2?" needn't be asked.

Therefore, since it was a question asked, there is a need for it to be asked. There is meaning therein.

Answers therefore need to be found.

I gave the answer that I found, back in the thread.

God has supported no one in any conflict. I believe we have reached the same conclusion, although coming upon the correct answer from different directions.

[William]

[Replying to William]

No. They are definitions of something happening which contradicts the Nurturing of Nature.

The classic example is of a lion killing a baby antelope and then sharing the meal with her cubs. But let's make this even more relevant by indicating that the lion killed a human child and then shared the meal with her cubs. What do you suppose that the opinion of nature is concerning this event?

Nature is nurturing. But how is this related to modern warfare and GOD?

No. 'One' exists on the planet which is going through a time of judgement regarding the human beings creating evil dramas for themselves. That is not a 'point of view' but a fact.

Except that you just made it up. If you understood history you would be aware that we are currently in one of the most enlightened periods ever in the course of human history. And, yes, there certainly is room for continued improvement. But we have been undergoing continued improvement, so there is much room for hope.

IF you are saying that even with the evil human dramas that there is hope for humanity, this is not being debated.

IF
no God exists to begin with
THEN
"WHOSE SIDE WAS GOD ON IN WW2?" needn't be asked.

Therefore, since it was a question asked, there is a need for it to be asked. There is meaning therein.

Answers therefore need to be found.

I gave the answer that I found, back in the thread.

God has supported no one in any conflict. I believe we have reached the same conclusion, although coming upon the correct answer from different directions.

Perhaps. I myself am presently positioned between options 2&3 in relation to GODs existing and human warfare. This is largely because I am of the opinion that there are different levels to being a GOD, in relation to consciousness and this universe.

This would equate to the local GOD (Planet Entity) evolving at the level presently occupied with and other type GODs at various levels of evolution related directly to their individual systems position in biological evolutionary terms, throughout the universe. Some would be extremely engaged in warfare while others have evolved through that and no longer participate due to planetary peace.

Between those two extremes the engaging is closely related to the warring species themselves and how these might best serve the planetary entities agenda, and how much connection and control the planet entity has with the overall dominant species on the planet.

Such entities would position at option 2:

There may also be an overall GOD to which all universe Entities are interfaced with depending on their position re evolution.

Any such GOD will not directly be taking sides in any warfare on any planet and hold position 3:

Also, this may extend to an out-of-this-universe GOD which would also hold position 3:

The position of "Filthy Little Liar" is slightly beneath GOD-head and will hold position 1: still a 'GOD' but evil and disinterested in goodness or its creatures great and small.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

Polls have indicated that non belief in the USA has risen from around 5-7% at the end of the last century, to about 25% now. A rise of about 1% per year this century. At this rate non belief will be the majority opinion by the middle of the century.

What we are witnessing now are the furious but probably futile attempts of religious belief to maintain popular plurality. The trend towards non belief is already well underway in the modern developed countries, however.

Do you bother to add sources for these numbers and claims, please?

http://www.pewforum.org/2015/05/12/amer ... landscape/

Although this article is dated May of 2015, the poll was actually conducted in 2014.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 17 by William]

What you have quoted there is biblical reference to atrocities carried out by others who claimed that GOD had told them to do this.

As such, this is not evidence that GOD told them to do anything. Anyone can claim GOD told them to do 'this' or 'that', does not mean to say GOD told them.
Claims require evidence.

If someone on this site says "I did [Nice Thing X] because God told me to do so", will you challenge them in the same manner, just as you challenge the writings of the Old Testament?

[William]

[Replying to post 17 by William]

What you have quoted there is biblical reference to atrocities carried out by others who claimed that GOD had told them to do this.

As such, this is not evidence that GOD told them to do anything. Anyone can claim GOD told them to do 'this' or 'that', does not mean to say GOD told them.
Claims require evidence.

If someone on this site says "I did [Nice Thing X] because God told me to do so", will you challenge them in the same manner, just as you challenge the writings of the Old Testament?

I don't care whether someone does something nice because they were motivated by love of GOD or Love of humans, or just plain love of doing [X nice things]. What is there to challenge?

[2Dbunk]

[Replying to post 17 by William]

What you have quoted there is biblical reference to atrocities carried out by others who claimed that GOD had told them to do this.

As such, this is not evidence that GOD told them to do anything. Anyone can claim GOD told them to do 'this' or 'that', does not mean to say GOD told them.
Claims require evidence.

I can't let you get away with that. You, a theist, are telling us that the OT is basically a series of old wives tales, well, old men's tales. You are admitting the OT is full of hearsay and is not "God's" word and the literal instruction book of the Jews. This is in effect putting all fundamentalists of the three Abrahamic religions out of business. No wonder the world is in a quandary over religious dogma and dictates . . . with such a shoddy first edition.

And yet God Himself ordered the Jews to wipe out their enemies utterly. It's one of the great contradictions of the Bible, wouldn't you agree?

It depends on ones reference.

It has been proved the the Jews are good at making up stories, so it stands to reason that they got this talent from their Israeli fore-bearers.

A hand-me-down nonsense, but more importantly an extremely damaging one if indeed any true GOD did exist, because - as you should agree - this puts a stain...a bloodstain on GOD - an evil thing which had to eventually be dealt with, thus - Jesus and his version of GOD...something which appended, seems to appear as an evolution from the extremely bloodthirsty to the not so bloodthirsty and pointing into the direction of never bloodthirsty.

Nice try! Yes, the first edition was extremely damaging. But the second edition doesn't really set things straight. Oh, it is less bloodthirsty and more pastoral but Jesus said he hasn't come to change the OT but to confirm it. If anything, These religious tomes are just more confusing; i.e. the advent of Islam and now Mormonism. (Using God and evolution in the same sentence . . . WOW! Admitting the all knowing and powerful deity's rhetoric is evolving . . . that must be cathartic.

You're getting there, pilgrim.

[William]

[Replying to post 17 by William]

What you have quoted there is biblical reference to atrocities carried out by others who claimed that GOD had told them to do this.

As such, this is not evidence that GOD told them to do anything. Anyone can claim GOD told them to do 'this' or 'that', does not mean to say GOD told them.
Claims require evidence.

I can't let you get away with that.

Get away with what?

You, a theist,...

What's with the name-calling?

.

..are telling us that the OT is basically a series of old wives tales, well, old men's tales

.

Don't be so surprised! All cultures embellished their history to look all heroic and grandiose.

You are admitting the OT is full of hearsay and is not "God's" word and the literal instruction book of the Jews.

I am not admitting. I am acknowledging. I don't think it is all made up stories and hearsay though. It is a natural enough understanding of an idea of GOD based on human beings making said idea into something of their own image, as it were.
Humans were a lot more basic back then.

This is in effect putting all fundamentalists of the three Abrahamic religions out of business.

Hardly. But they don't have mine.

No wonder the world is in a quandary over religious dogma and dictates . . . with such a shoddy first edition.

No more 'shoddy' than the process of biological evolution. It is what it is.

And yet God Himself ordered the Jews to wipe out their enemies utterly. It's one of the great contradictions of the Bible, wouldn't you agree?

It depends on ones reference.

It has been proved the the Jews are good at making up stories, so it stands to reason that they got this talent from their Israeli fore-bearers.

A hand-me-down nonsense, but more importantly an extremely damaging one if indeed any true GOD did exist, because - as you should agree - this puts a stain...a bloodstain on GOD - an evil thing which had to eventually be dealt with, thus - Jesus and his version of GOD...something which appended, seems to appear as an evolution from the extremely bloodthirsty to the not so bloodthirsty and pointing into the direction of never bloodthirsty.

Nice try! Yes, the first edition was extremely damaging. But the second edition doesn't really set things straight.

It depends on your reference.

Oh, it is less bloodthirsty and more pastoral but Jesus said he hasn't come to change the OT but to confirm it.

Really? Did he say that then? It would be interesting to examine the context in relation to everything he is attributed with saying.

If anything, These religious tomes are just more confusing; i.e. the advent of Islam and now Mormonism.

Again, it depends on your reference. I have said elsewhere, it can shown that Jesus is attributed with warning folk that the road ahead would not be easy and one would need to keep their wits about them because *deception*. Thus 2000 years later, we have historical evidence of that deception.

(Using God and evolution in the same sentence . . . WOW! Admitting the all knowing and powerful deity's rhetoric is evolving . . . that must be cathartic.)

There are GODs and then there is GOD. Different levels depending on the circumstance.

The Earth Entity is knowing enough in regards to local activity.

You're getting there, pilgrim.

As we all, no doubt, will do - eventually.

Happy and exciting travels.