About America Lucky or Blessed?
|June 22nd, 2010||#1|
| || |
America Lucky or Blessed? info
In our history i feel there are three events that speak loudest as our pivotal moments as a Nation.
1.The Battle of Saratoga - our first Major Victory and a paradox of our gratitude. In it we are forever in dept to our most infamous traitor who without we may not have found our selfs a nation.
The shooting of general Burgoyne and pivotal American attack led by Benedict Arnold gave us the international intervention that was needed achieve victory over the British empire (realistically there was no way we could have won without the preoccupation of English forces all over the world and Europe with French and Spanish forces.). It also for the most part weekend the British army in Canada taking away another avenue of approach for a thinly stretched continental army to deal with. Arnold and Morgan were not alone the reasons we won our Independence put without them it becomes far less likely. Arnold may not have been a man of great character but he was a man of great skill.
2.Little Round Top - This may or may not be the pivotal moment of the civil war, that part can be argued. but with the folding of the union left flank the battle more then likely would have been lost, with the battle goes the first time the union has a clear victory in the east, more than likely swaying a already close election in 1864. One thing that cant be questioned is the bravery and luck of then Col. Chamberlain of ordering a charge while outnumbered and out of ammunition at the perfect time to push the southern attackers beyond there limits. Without this move how different would our history books read of the war that set our nation on a more unified and clearer path for a stronger Federal government that would not again be looked at as separate states but as one unified nation.
3.Midway - In no other battle in my opinion is it more apparent that god is on our side. We had the enemy's location, perfectly placed our forces to best deal with the incoming threat and still managed to screw up our initial attack. To me to many factors lead up to the perfect Carrier attack ( the opposite of what American Carrier doctrine is at the time.) to be interpreted as anything less then divine intervention. one a failed submarine attack makes a Japanese destroyer lag behind the main task force. Two our own failed coordination brings our torpedo bombers in for one of the most heroic and wastefully attacks in history.( the courage of those men to go in knowing that more then likely they would be shot down and that there efforts would more then likely be fruitless was amazing we as a nation are forever gratefully to them for there sacrifice.) Three the perfect timing at which the American dive bombers appear with the refueling of the zeroes and refitting of the attack planes on the Japanese decks not to mention the number of hits scored in the attack. This just being the tactical examination of the battle.
Strategically midway changes the aspect of the war in the pacific. we no longer are outnumbered fighting a defensive action. the Japanese navy's offensive capabilities would never be the same and all they could do from that point on is defend what they have. with the fall of midway pearl harbor and the pacific fleet is just a few thousand miles away. without the loss of thoughts carriers they could have more than likely pressed the naval advantage leaving us without the ability to resupply or relieve a force at pearl harbor. with pearl goes the pacific supply line and we are forced to the peace table with our tail between our legs. If you think this is unlikely just look at when our new capital ships and carriers start coming on line not until 44 is the us Navy unstoppable and i point out again thats because its not facing 5 veteran Japanese carriers. world war two looks much different without US victory in the pacific and i think we ow that to the pilots and crew of those two torpedo squadrons.
please comment or point out faults in my logic i would love the exchange.
|June 22nd, 2010||#2|
| || |
I'm not a specialist in US history, but such views always surprise me. Superpowers do not emerge from scratch or by pure accident. If the Americans were unprepared but still won the battle anyway, it doesn't point neither at the Divine Intervention nor at some blessing. It is only because the Americans were still prepared better than their opponents - no more, no less. History doesn't know what if.
|June 22nd, 2010||#3|
| || |
If there were a god, there would never have been any wars, so we can rule out "god" being on anyone's side.
Unless of course, he is an incompetent god, one who is all powerful and all seeing, yet lets man slaughter his fellow man (supposedly all god's children) I would suggest that if he were human the Government would take his children off of him and put them in foster care. Hardly the act of a "god"
|June 22nd, 2010||#4|
| || |
|June 22nd, 2010||#6|
| || |
Sigh... all these narrow minded, short sighted people who refuse to believe anything they don't have answers for in order to believe in... things they have no answer for.
Well, whatever. Science sure has proven a lot to us, hasn't it? It couldn't possibly be that God created a structured set of blocks in which defined parameters operate outside of any plane of our current understanding, each little piece affecting another little piece.
Nope. It's all random chance. Every bit of it. Those algorithmic patterns we use to describe and define the very chemicals that we have faith in as the goo that binds life together, with zero proof of any of the such, is an act of pure chaos, two lifeless meteors slamming together.
It's always fun debating with those who believe the unbelievable to dismiss the unbelievable. Y'all fail in your very core beliefs; science itself has proven that there is nothing "random," yet you tout it as some victorious citation. Guess what? If "random" cannot exist, as science says, then "design" is the only other way. Or how about "planned?" We like to call those 'opposing terms' when we're talking about debates, but I am sure none of you will have any of that realistic, mature and educated logic.
That can't exist, because I am a product of quadrillions of atoms slamming together in random patterns, with a chance of life being 1.67 TRILLION to the TENTH power, and then again to the TENTH POWER.
The number is so large that, literally, this board wouldn't let me post it all in one post.
But that's more likely than some type of divinity, right? That one in whatever-billions-of-billions-of-billions chances is far more believable for 3.9 billion people living on the planet than admitting that you. Just. Don't. Know. It. All.
What arrogance from such simple minds...
|June 22nd, 2010||#7|
| || |
Oh, to the OP:
I'll overlook the number of spelling mistakes and grammatical errors lost in the gibberish of a point-not-reached just to say this:
If God has anything to do with war, then mankind has no free will, negating the very concept of God creating man with the insight to formulate and calculate his and her own decisions outside of His influence.
Like the anti-God extremists, the pro-God extremist "Divine Intervention" proponents are equally as laughable in their commonality of arrogance and, yes, narcissism.
Y'all are constantly trying to define divinity - you're putting a box around something you don't understand so you can understand it. Like the atheists, your very beliefs are a dichotomy, a slippery slope with no drop off.
Before I continue, may I recommend a piece of literature? Philip Yancy - Disappointment With God. He articulates MUCH more clearly (and with greater brevity, which I apologize for) the idea that God gave us our chance and, basically, has decided to move on. Every single time in recorded history He has acted on our behalf, we used it and became even more disobedient when our expectations overcame our sense of appreciation.
(senojekips: I know you'll enjoy that book VERY much, as you're a thinker. We disagree on this subject, you and I, but we have never once engaged each other in anything but the utmost respect and politeness to our individual right to belief. I understand that your mind will not be turned, so that is not the purpose of this recommendation - I just feel that your intellect will greatly appreciate the insight offered from that silent, third-party view. Yancy is a master at it, though he himself is a Christian).
OK, rant back on...
The very word 'divinity' suggests omnipotence, which is where humans get their understanding of "limitations" from. Without an unreachable standard, every effort reaches a point where it terminates. That's dangerous ground, a gross sense of ever-importance (not OVER-importance) that tempts those to grandstand their personal worth.
To believe in the concept of "God," one MUST accept the concept of free will. Otherwise, God created puppets and His son's death on the cross was an impromptu show of nothingness but sacrifice - a farce. Jesus Himself is a particular part of God no longer to be part of any free-will love offered. How can one sacrifice to a sacrifice? If you want a martyr, look at the churches. If you want divinity, forget you know, period.
That's what the entire sacrifice was all about: the reckoning of our decisions because God gave us a choice.
So if God is up there at the Heaven Slot Machine pulling the handle to decide who lives and dies, which nation wins, then what does that say about the patterns of free will? That we're allowed to have it but that He'll step in, anyway?
Do I believe America is blessed? Yes. But it is because of the hearts of the men and women who live here and fight for her of their own FREE WILL.
But lucky? We're back to random chance, which science has disproved as realistic or even possible.
Catch-22? Not to those who refuse to put things in boxes and consider them one way.
|June 22nd, 2010||#8|
| || |
If it were so I would despise him anyway, putting him into the category of those who organise and oversee dog fights and child molesters etc., because that would have to be the level of his morality. If this is your god, well,... you are welcome to him, just don't expect people with a brain or any sense of morality to believe you. I would seriously suggest that he only exists on the imaginations of those who do not have the backbone to stand up for what is right, they can use their god to excuse them from moral behaviour
So please, let's leave the creatures of some persons imagination out what is supposed to be an otherwise logical debate.
|June 22nd, 2010||#9|
| || |
|June 22nd, 2010||#10|
| || |
If God has given up on us, no wonder He doesn't give a crap if we war with each other.
First of all, the entire precept of this thread is decidedly arguing for or against a concept that requires divinity. You replied to this thread long before I did with your thoughts of negating a god. How can I possibly comment on the thread or your comments if I "leave the creatures of some persons imagination out what is supposed to be an otherwise logical debate."
What's logical about a debate centered on God that doesn't include the concept of... God?
You're going to pull something if'n you keep stretching that far, bro! Careful!
But you're also suggesting that a God ignore all human free will and step in and stop every bad thing that we could ever do to one another.
You're a soldier, Joe! You, like me, value freedom above everything else. Yet we expect God to jump in and control our actions? That's logical? A brain? A sense of morality? You believe I lack these things? You cannot accept that I am intelligent, that I have very high morals, and yet I attribute those qualities to God, whereas you attribute them to...
Oh, right. Randomness. That cannot exist. Like your argument against it in that reply. Never debate that which you cannot, even if you stood yourself in the corner, right?
So you believe in what is IMPOSSIBLE, lecturing me on my belief in the improbable...
And I have no brain. Genius!
Man, you've lost your edge since I have been gone. It usually takes me 8 to 10 posts before I pick apart everything you've said. Embarrassing your argument (not YOU, your argument) was too easy this time.
So, um, tell me where your feelings come from in this - you know, those things that have zero physical plane existence, that cannot even exist, that completely go 180 degrees of what we know about how everything exists. That science has done such a wonderful job explaining. You know, like the difference between loving your wife and your daughter - it's not morality, it is unexplainable except to say that it is there, that it came from... nothing, and yet here it is, something. A difference in the way you feel, but the same in so many regards. Evolution? Of a FEELING? of something that has no existence except in your heart and mind?
You believe in your feelings well enough, and you accept them as there in you for a reason, important to you, a natural thing in any human. But they cannot exist, brother. There are no atoms to bind, no chemical composition to mix, no mathematical formula that ambiguously explains some of it, no nothing. They simply do not exist. But they DO exist.
I see God with that same level of understanding and explanation. I don't need to know to know that I don't know - I already don't know enough to know that I don't know...
I'm not trying to convince you of anything except your own, flawed logic that we introduce logic into a conversation about things that cannot exist in the logical world.