Should atheists, agnostics, etc. be allowed to have children?

[Perd Hapley]

You disagree with almost everything.

And we can always count on you to yap at Rabbi's heels. 

[CAnnoneer]

I could start by pointing out that Nazism is fascism and the very symbol of fascism suggests collectivism.  Thus communism and Nazism are really two sides of the same coin.

Only partly right. Communism is intrinsically internationalist and multicultural. Nazism is extremely nationalistic and thus anti-multicultural. Also, nazism has levels of severity and the moderates actually won in Germany in the face of Hitler & co, who disposed of the ultras in the face of Erich Roehm & co. In fact, Hitler made a deal with the conservatives in the army and industry for exactly that, as well as the disbandment of the S.A. So, in terms of socialism, by the time of WW2, the nazis were far far righter on the spectrum than the commies.

I could continue to say that people were not disillusioned by the slaughter of WW2.  The very opposite.  It was "the just war" and suggested that wars actually do some good.  In fact we fought wars pretty soon after, Korea and Vietnam to name two. 

The "war-weariness" was much less in US before Vietnam than it was in Europe, but for Europe it was the final blow to any hawkish backbone. I am convinced that were it not for nuclear weapons, the Soviets would have rolled to the Atlantic without much non-American opposition.

Anti-communists did not join the Nazis.  They largely emigrated or were killed as opponents of the regime.  The Nazi supporters were made up of self-aggrandizing people with their own agenda.

Here you are plain wrong. Italians, Romanians, and Hungarians had many divisions on the Eastern Front, while volunteers throughout Europe, but especially cental and eastern, flocked to the banners. Cossacks and Russians had their own army fighting the Stalinists. Even Waffen-SS divisions had volunteer soldiers from virtually every European nation, including Russians.

I could go on and on.

Please do.

But have I convinced you now, Werewolf?  Or did you have something else in mind making those comments?

Werewolf is on the money. You do like to dismiss bombastically what you do not like, then finish with a personal attack.

[The Rabbi]

I could start by pointing out that Nazism is fascism and the very symbol of fascism suggests collectivism.  Thus communism and Nazism are really two sides of the same coin.

Only partly right. Communism is intrinsically internationalist and multicultural. Nazism is extremely nationalistic and thus anti-multicultural. Also, nazism has levels of severity and the moderates actually won in Germany in the face of Hitler & co, who disposed of the ultras in the face of Erich Roehm & co. In fact, Hitler made a deal with the conservatives in the army and industry for exactly that, as well as the disbandment of the S.A. So, in terms of socialism, by the time of WW2, the nazis were far far righter on the spectrum than the commies.

You are making distinctions without differences.  In terms of hostility to the individual and urging for the individual to subsume his interersts to the larger good, both communism and nazism were equal.

I could continue to say that people were not disillusioned by the slaughter of WW2.  The very opposite.  It was "the just war" and suggested that wars actually do some good.  In fact we fought wars pretty soon after, Korea and Vietnam to name two.

The "war-weariness" was much less in US before Vietnam than it was in Europe, but for Europe it was the final blow to any hawkish backbone. I am convinced that were it not for nuclear weapons, the Soviets would have rolled to the Atlantic without much non-American opposition.

Except the Greeks fought a civil war against the communists.  The French fought wars in Algeria and Vietnam.  The British fought in Malaysia.  There was no shortage of wars fought by European powers after WW2.

Anti-communists did not join the Nazis.  They largely emigrated or were killed as opponents of the regime.  The Nazi supporters were made up of self-aggrandizing people with their own agenda.

Here you are plain wrong. Italians, Romanians, and Hungarians had many divisions on the Eastern Front, while volunteers throughout Europe, but especially cental and eastern, flocked to the banners. Cossacks and Russians had their own army fighting the Stalinists. Even Waffen-SS divisions had volunteer soldiers from virtually every European nation, including Russians.

I thought you were confining yourself to Germany pre-war.  Even so, those you mention were not anti-communists in any ideological sense.  They hated the Russians for nationalist or other reasons.

[/quote]

[mnrivrat]

Rabbi Wrote :

I didnt see anyone trying to convert anyone else.  I did see people engaging in discussion who were committed to what they believed but treated the other side seriously. 

LOL !    I might not be as smart as you think you are, but I do recognize a cock fight when I see one ! 

[Perd Hapley]

Sorry, Kyle, this took me longer than I expected.  This took me a while to put together, so I'll expect you to answer my questions in the next post.  If not, at least this little exercise helped me clarify my own thoughts on the issue.

To answer your questions, here's a few things the New Testament has to say about the Mosaic Law and how it relates to Christians.  

Hebrews Chap. 7, NIV

11If perfection could have been attained through the Levitical priesthood (for on the basis of it the law was given to the people), why was there still need for another priest to comeone in the order of Melchizedek, not in the order of Aaron? 12For when there is a change of the priesthood, there must also be a change of the law. 13He of whom these things are said belonged to a different tribe, and no one from that tribe has ever served at the altar. 14For it is clear that our Lord descended from Judah, and in regard to that tribe Moses said nothing about priests. 15And what we have said is even more clear if another priest like Melchizedek appears, 16one who has become a priest not on the basis of a regulation as to his ancestry but on the basis of the power of an indestructible life. 17For it is declared:
   "You are a priest forever,
      in the order of Melchizedek."[a]
 18The former regulation is set aside because it was weak and useless 19(for the law made nothing perfect), and a better hope is introduced, by which we draw near to God.

 Hebrews Chap. 8

 5They [Jewish priests] serve at a sanctuary that is a copy and shadow of what is in heaven. This is why Moses was warned when he was about to build the tabernacle: "See to it that you make everything according to the pattern shown you on the mountain."[a] 6But the ministry Jesus has received is as superior to theirs as the covenant of which he is mediator is superior to the old one, and it is founded on better promises.

 7For if there had been nothing wrong with that first covenant, no place would have been sought for another. 8But God found fault with the people and said:
   "The time is coming, declares the Lord,
      when I will make a new covenant
   with the house of Israel
      and with the house of Judah.
 9It will not be like the covenant
      I made with their forefathers
   when I took them by the hand
      to lead them out of Egypt,
   because they did not remain faithful to my covenant,
      and I turned away from them, declares the Lord.
 10This is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel
      after that time, declares the Lord.
   I will put my laws in their minds
      and write them on their hearts.    I will be their God,
      and they will be my people.
 11No longer will a man teach his neighbor,
      or a man his brother, saying, 'Know the Lord,'
   because they will all know me,
      from the least of them to the greatest.
 12For I will forgive their wickedness
      and will remember their sins no more."[c]

 13By calling this covenant "new," he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and aging will soon disappear.


 Hebrews Chap. 9
9This [see verses 1-8] is an illustration for the present time, indicating that the gifts and sacrifices being offered were not able to clear the conscience of the worshiper. 10They are only a matter of food and drink and various ceremonial washingsexternal regulations applying until the time of the new order.
 15For this reason [see the rest of the chapter] Christ is the mediator of a new covenant, that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritancenow that he has died as a ransom to set them free from the sins committed under the first covenant.

 Hebrews Chap. 10
1The law is only a shadow of the good things that are comingnot the realities themselves.

Acts, Chap. 10, NIV

 9About noon the following day as they [the servants of a Gentile centurion, Cornelius] were on their journey and approaching the city, Peter went up on the roof to pray. 10He became hungry and wanted something to eat, and while the meal was being prepared, he fell into a trance. 11He saw heaven opened and something like a large sheet being let down to earth by its four corners. 12It contained all kinds of four-footed animals, as well as reptiles of the earth and birds of the air. 13Then a voice told him, "Get up, Peter. Kill and eat."
 14"Surely not, Lord!" Peter replied. "I have never eaten anything impure or unclean."

 15The voice spoke to him a second time, "Do not call anything impure that God has made clean."

 16This happened three times, and immediately the sheet was taken back to heaven.

Later on in the chapter, Peter interprets the vision:

Peter went inside and found a large gathering of people. 28He said to them: "You are well aware that it is against our law for a Jew to associate with a Gentile or visit him. But God has shown me that I should not call any man impure or unclean.
Here is one instance in which Jewish tradition is shown to be out-moded.  Now, it looks like this may not apply to dietary laws, although that might certainly be inferred.

Acts 15  (NIV)    

 1Some men came down from Judea to Antioch and were teaching the brothers: "Unless you are circumcised, according to the custom taught by Moses, you cannot be saved." 2This brought Paul and Barnabas into sharp dispute and debate with them. So Paul and Barnabas were appointed, along with some other believers, to go up to Jerusalem to see the apostles and elders about this question.

4When they came to Jerusalem, they were welcomed by the church and the apostles and elders, to whom they reported everything God had done through them.
 5Then some of the believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees stood up and said, "The Gentiles must be circumcised and required to obey the law of Moses."

 6The apostles and elders met to consider this question. 7After much discussion, Peter got up and addressed them: "Brothers, you know that some time ago God made a choice among you that the Gentiles might hear from my lips the message of the gospel and believe. 8God, who knows the heart, showed that he accepted them by giving the Holy Spirit to them, just as he did to us. 9He made no distinction between us and them, for he purified their hearts by faith. 10Now then, why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of the disciples [i.e., Gentile believers] a yoke that neither we nor our fathers have been able to bear? 11No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are."

I'll spare you the whole proceedings of the council, but their final decision was as follows:

28It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements: 29You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things.




Now, we could go round and round about what that ultimately means to the Christian, but it is clear that Jesus' earliest Jewish followers did not find the whole Mosaic Law to be binding on the Gentile believers.  If I am correctly informed, even Gentile converts to Judaism were not necessarily expected to be circumcised and completely follow all the tenets of the law.  


You're correct that there's no one passage of scripture that says "this-and-this will still apply, these other things do not."  But we have this dillema of the above passages that clearly state that the Mosaic Law is not to apply to us as it did to the ancient Jews, yet the authors of the NT (and Jesus himself) still treated the OT as being authoritative and their moral views seem to be pretty well in line with it.  A lot of Christians have gone through the Old Testament trying to sort out the "civil law" and "ceremonial law," which was only for the ancient Jews, from the "moral law," which is universal and timeless. Others have decided that Christians are only bound by those moral guidelines laid down by the New Testament.  Either way, it seems pretty clear that Mosaic guidelines for prosecuting rape cases or punishing witchcraft are not a part of Christian practice.

[Perd Hapley]

Rabbi Wrote :

I didnt see anyone trying to convert anyone else.  I did see people engaging in discussion who were committed to what they believed but treated the other side seriously. 

LOL !    I might not be as smart as you think you are, but I do recognize a cock fight when I see one ! 

Are you trying to convert Rabbi to your view that this thread is a proselytizing cock-fight?  Sounds like it.  Sounds very frightening. 

mnrivrat, I think we're getting along pretty well in this particular thread without you.  Feel free to participate in other threads where you can be more congenial, and understand better what other people are saying.   

[Perd Hapley]

I understand your religion as one out of many, all equaly interesting, but no more "correct" or "true" than any other. I don't think there is any way that someone like me who sees the Bible as an amusing historical annecdote can have a discussion along these lines with an all-out believer.

I thought I had a rather substantial reply to the above, but the more I read it the less sense I can make of it.  What kind of discussion did you want to have?  What do you mean by "all-out believer"?  Are you presuming that I have some sort of blind faith?  Why can't you identify one religion as being more true or correct than others?   Wouldn't that be a rather straight-forward matter of seeing which religion most adhered to reality or which set of scriptures was the more factually correct?  Why can't you do that?

Could it be that "Dont Murder" and "Dont steal" fit nicely into our modern worldview, but "kill rape victims who don't fight back hard enough" clashes with it, so we throw it aside?

It could be, but it's obvious that a lot of people don't read the Bible so self-servingly.  If I dismiss this rape business just because it rankles me (and the Bible contains no such passage, anyway), why do I and many others still affirm that homosexuality is sinful?  "Homophobia" is just as offensive by current standards.  "Our modern worldview" has a pretty permissive view of sex.  Yet, many still interpret the Bible as teaching that all sex outside of marriage is wrong, including pornography.  Don't you think I'd like to be free from such moral restraint?  The truth is that many people interpret the Bible in such a way that it steps on their toes and those of others.  

You say that nothing in the Bible flies in the face of your morality. Your God killing small children for the actions of one man, or perhaps of their parents, sounds fine and dandy to you?

Could you be more specific about what you're talking about?  But first, what if something in the Bible does conflict with my conscience?  I'd have to consider that my conscience might be in the wrong.  Then I'd have to realize that, in the Bible, God is regarded as the creator and man as a creature that has sinned against God.  Death is regarded as being the rightful sentence for sin.  Given that, there's no way that God could be in the wrong by killing anyone, regardless of age.  Now, if you'd like to question whether death is a proper punishment for sin, that would be a meatier question.  But when you ask these questions, keep in mind your own moral code has no real basis.  Without some divinely-inspired Word on which to base your moral views, youre just spouting your own opinion more arbitrarily than any Bible-thumper could.  

kill rape victims who don't fight back hard enough

The Bible simply doesnt say that.  Let's look at what the passage is talking about.  Adultery would appear to be the actual topic.  

Deuteronomy 22

22 If a man is found sleeping with another man's wife, both the man who slept with her and the woman must die. You must purge the evil from Israel.

 23 If a man happens to meet in a town a virgin pledged to be married and he sleeps with her, 24 you shall take both of them to the gate of that town and stone them to deaththe girl because she was in a town and did not scream for help, and the man because he violated another man's wife. You must purge the evil from among you.

 25 But if out in the country a man happens to meet a girl pledged to be married and rapes her, only the man who has done this shall die. 26 Do nothing to the girl; she has committed no sin deserving death. This case is like that of someone who attacks and murders his neighbor, 27 for the man found the girl out in the country, and though the betrothed girl screamed, there was no one to rescue her.

 28 If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, 29 he shall pay the girl's father fifty shekels of silver.  He must marry the girl, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.


Rabbi, if I'm making things mean whatever I think they ought to mean, this would be a good time to point out what I'm doing wrong.

So, adultery (whether before or after marriage) is punished by stoning for both parties.  But exceptions are made for cases where the "adultery" may have been a rape.  In the case of the girl in the countryside, she is given the benefit of the doubt.  Whether the sex was consensual or not, she is not punished.  You might think that marrying the alleged rapist (for the un-betrothed girl) is a punishment, but I don't think it was.  First of all, the law only assumes the girl was raped, and this was for her protection.  It could assume she was willing, which would mean a stoning.  And the passage doesn't state that she is required to marry him, but that he is required to marry her.  As I understand it, this is not a culture where a non-virginal girl has much chance of being married.  And the future was bleak for women without husbands.  It seems to be the case that the man is forced to provide for the girl and any potential children for the rest of his life.  This was probably about as good as the defiled girl could hope for, given the culture.  

Youll notice the word rape is not even mentioned in the urban scenario.  It explicitly talks about a woman who could have refused to have sex (cried out for help) but did not.  But I have been scolded by a prickly Jewish clergyman for speculating, so I will stop there.  Rabbi could enlighten us if he would condescend to grant us the benefit of his great learning.  

[Werewolf]

You disagree with almost everything.

And we can always count on you to yap at Rabbi's heels. 

And you to snivel and whine about it...

[griz]

They could have won earlier and far less expensively, would have subsequently collapsed faster than USSR, would have been easier to deal with, would have been less damaging to Europe and the West in the long run.

This one baffles me.  I caught the "long run" qualifier, but still, Germany declared war on us.  What did you expect to happen?

[tyme]

Why can't you identify one religion as being more true or correct than others?   Wouldn't that be a rather straight-forward matter of seeing which religion most adhered to reality or which set of scriptures was the more factually correct?  Why can't you do that?

Anyone can take true history, insert a few things, and turn it into a religion.  Historical accuracy doesn't make a religious tract valid; it just means that the writer wasn't a dunce.

If I wrote a biography of Elvis and added that someone saw Elvis reappear and get picked up by the Flying Spaghetti Monster on 1999-12-31, would you accept FSM as a religion?  A decent writer could turn that into a glorious religion, complete with Y2K mythology and the importance of bad music for the hardiness of the soul.

[Perd Hapley]

tyme, you're entirely correct.  I didn't claim that my religion is true just because of the Bible's good record with regards to historical details.  I was responding to the following:

I understand your religion as one out of many, all equaly interesting, but no more "correct" or "true" than any other.

Now, whether he believes in any religion at all, he can certainly look at the claims of various religions and determine whether one is more "true" or "correct," (what are those quotation marks doing there, anyway?) than some other, by testing whether their factual statements mesh with objective facts.  The point being that Kyle is welcome to his skepticism, but it's simply wrong to claim that no one religion is more correct than any other.

[CAnnoneer]

I thought you were confining yourself to Germany pre-war. 

Nope, I was talking about both pre- and during war. In any case, there are a series of memoirs of common soldiers that started with the political situation in their native countries before the war.  Those memoirs more than substantiate my claims on the political dynamics both before and during the war. While the details varied, the common theme was anti-communism.

Even so, those you mention were not anti-communists in any ideological sense.  They hated the Russians for nationalist or other reasons.

That may be true for some of them (e.g. some Latvians, Romanians, and Chechens), but certainly not for all or even the majority. Also Italians and Russians have no ethnic or historical reason to hate Russians.

[Matthew Carberry]

You disagree with almost everything.

And we can always count on you to yap at Rabbi's heels. 

And you to snivel and whine about it...

"Cringe" would have maintained the canine parallel better.  Dogs yap and whine, but they don't snivel.

[The Rabbi]

I thought you were confining yourself to Germany pre-war. 

Nope, I was talking about both pre- and during war. In any case, there are a series of memoirs of common soldiers that started with the political situation in their native countries before the war.  Those memoirs more than substantiate my claims on the political dynamics both before and during the war. While the details varied, the common theme was anti-communism.

Even so, those you mention were not anti-communists in any ideological sense.  They hated the Russians for nationalist or other reasons.

That may be true for some of them (e.g. some Latvians, Romanians, and Chechens), but certainly not for all or even the majority. Also Italians and Russians have no ethnic or historical reason to hate Russians.

No one was an anti-communist in the 1930s, except Nazis and fascists.  All the intellectuals were communists themselves.  I think Orwell was a communist at this time.  How many Italians volunteered to fight the Russians (outside the Italian Army) is subject to question.  White Russians had plenty of reason to hate Red Russians--they had been fighting a civil war since the revolution.

[CAnnoneer]

 it's simply wrong to claim that no one religion is more correct than any other.

Most religions ultimately deal with the immaterial, and thus nobody can disprove that final immaterial component by material means. However, we materialists believe in probability descriptions of a random process. Since we have no objective material way to ultimately test one religion against another, we have to content ourselves with assigning equal probability of correctness to each religious worldview, because being right is not a democracy and thus is not decided by popular vote.

Thus if we have 100 competing denominations, and assume for simplicity that they are mutually exclusive, then each has a chance of 1% at best of being correct. Thus if we are asked to assess any particular religion, we have to say that it is overwhelmingly likely it is wrong. We cannot be 100% certain it is wrong, but the odds look real bad for each particular one of them.

[CAnnoneer]

White Russians had plenty of reason to hate Red Russians--they had been fighting a civil war since the revolution.

So, you agree that the reason was purely political, and anti-communist.

Also, if you read up on Gen. Vlasov, you will see that 100s of thousands deserted the Red Army and fought in German units exactly because of the anti-stalinist message that was circulated. These guys certainly were not "White Russians" in the counter-revolutionary sense of the word (some confusion possible with "Belorussians" which is an ethnic group).

[CAnnoneer]

This one baffles me.  I caught the "long run" qualifier, but still, Germany declared war on us.  What did you expect to happen?

A valid point, but don't start the book in the middle. Comrade Roosevelt had been doing everything he could to support the British and the Soviets long before Hitler declared war on the US in December 1941. Funny that he ran for reelection on a promise not to send a single GI across the Atlantic, while he did everything he could to provoke Germany into declaring war since 1939. Read up on the 50 destroyers he gave to the Brits in 1940, the American escort of British shipping, the HUGE lend-lease program to arm and equip both the Brits and the Soviets, starting March and June 1941, respectively. The second round of lend-lease for the Soviets started in October, two months before Hitler declared war on the US.

Also read up on Tehran and how Comrade Roosevelt was Uncle Jo's buddy while leaving Churchill and Europe isolated. Finally, the "unconditional surrender" nonsense that extended the war by years, decimated Europe, and delivered half of it to the stalinists, was ultimately Comrade Roosevelt caving in to Uncle Jo.

[tyme]

Now, whether he believes in any religion at all, he can certainly look at the claims of various religions and determine whether one is more "true" or "correct," (what are those quotation marks doing there, anyway?) than some other, by testing whether their factual statements mesh with objective facts.

Not true, for the exact reason I just outlined.  By your standard, if I include more true facts in my FSM religious tract than there are in the Bible, FSM becomes more true than Christianity.

This is the same problem that exists in intelligence/counterintelligence.  Unless you already know what's true and what's not, it's impossible to (reliably) take a statement and separate it into truth and lies.  The standard way of evaluating information is to weigh the benefit to the author if the information is false against the cost to the author of all the prior true facts (bona fides) he's provided.  Since writing a book filled with facts is a cheap endeavor, and getting a mass of people to follow your religion can provide tremendous value, it's ridiculous to believe in a religion just because parts of its founding book happen to be true.

[Perd Hapley]

Most religions ultimately deal with the immaterial, and thus nobody cannot disprove that final immaterial component by material means. However, we materialists believe in probability descriptions of a random process. Since we have no objective material way to ultimately test one religion against another, we have to content ourselves with assigning equal probability of correctness to each religious worldview, because being right is not a democracy and thus is not decided by popular vote.

Thus if we have 100 competing denominations, and assume for simplicity that they are mutually exclusive, then each has a chance of 1% at best of being correct. Thus if we are asked to assess any particular religion, we have to say that it is overwhelmingly likely it is wrong. We cannot be 100% certain it is wrong, but the odds look real bad for each particular one of them.

Did you put that together with a random word generator?  I'm not talking about moral teachings or theories of what a soul is.  I'm talking about the objective truth claims that can be tested - historical facts, scientific accuracy, etc.  For example, if Mohammed says that God is one and there is no trinity, that's not so easy to prove or disprove.  On the other hand, when he says that Christians worship Mary as a part of the Trinity, we can look back at Christian writings up until that time and demonstrate that this is false.   

[CAnnoneer]

fistful,

Nice opening sentence. How was your lunch?

Read tyme's response and think about it. No amount of objective truth validates a religion, because any contemporary can insert such facts. At best, a religion can discredit itself by maintaining objective fallasies. Simultaneously, no amount of cross-reference to other religions increases the credibility of either or any, because all of them can be wrong on that particular point, and TRUTH IS NOT A DEMOCRACY.

Another way to think about it is that a religion is a set of statements, say from A to Z. Just because B, H, and J are historically correct does not obtain that P, W, and Y are correct as well. In this belief alphabet, there invariably are mystical/immaterial statements that cannot be proven or disproven, and thus are unacceptable to a non-believer or an else-believer. Because a religion is to be taken in its entirety, the inherent uncertainty inevitably and permanently puts the religion in question as well.

[Perd Hapley]

it's ridiculous to believe in a religion just because parts of its founding book happen to be true.

Didn't I already agree with you?

I didn't claim that my religion is true just because of the Bible's good record with regards to historical details.

Why do you insist on accusing me of saying ridiculous things that I did not say?  I nowhere suggested that we tabulate statistics on which holy book has more facts. 

Not true, for the exact reason I just outlined.  By your standard, if I include more true facts in my FSM religious tract than there are in the Bible, FSM becomes more true than Christianity.

Do we have reliable primary and secondary sources in which hundreds of people claim to have seen the resurrected Elvis at the same time?  Did the detractors fail to exhume his body despite an obvious benefit to doing so?  Has anyone claiming to have seen the resurrected Elvis been willing to die for this conviction? 

The standard way of evaluating information is to weigh the benefit to the author if the information is false against the cost to the author of all the prior true facts (bona fides) he's provided.

This sounds a lot like one of arguments for the reliability of the Gospel accounts, but  want to make sure I understand you.  Are you saying that the information is more reliable if it is embarassing or otherwise injurious to the author?   A case in point would be that the Gospels portray Jesus' disciples (now the leaders of the Christian sect) as thick-headed, frightened and often faithless. 

[tyme]

I nowhere suggested that we tabulate statistics on which holy book has more facts.

and earlier...

Why can't you identify one religion as being more true or correct than others?   Wouldn't that be a rather straight-forward matter of seeing which religion most adhered to reality or which set of scriptures was the more factually correct?  Why can't you do that?

Are you trolling or what?

[mnrivrat]

Are you trying to convert Rabbi to your view that this thread is a proselytizing cock-fight?  Sounds like it.  Sounds very frightening. 

mnrivrat, I think we're getting along pretty well in this particular thread without you.   Feel free to participate in other threads where you can be more congenial, and understand better what other people are saying.   

Actualy I think your right - you can indeed get along without me .

 My point was simple - You might think yourselfs literary giants expressing your superior intellect and religious knowledge, and quivel about what may be the moral religious standard , but in fact it still just comes off like a couple midget chickens clucking at each other.

Much to do about nothing & Yes - I am now finished and gone.

[The Rabbi]

White Russians had plenty of reason to hate Red Russians--they had been fighting a civil war since the revolution.

So, you agree that the reason was purely political, and anti-communist.

Also, if you read up on Gen. Vlasov, you will see that 100s of thousands deserted the Red Army and fought in German units exactly because of the anti-stalinist message that was circulated. These guys certainly were not "White Russians" in the counter-revolutionary sense of the word (some confusion possible with "Belorussians" which is an ethnic group).

There was no pure sentiment against communism per se.  They suffered under the soviets and wanted power.  We aren't talking Barry Goldwater here.  And they were hardly democratic themselves.
In any case, to hear suggested that the US picked the wrong side and should have allied with Hitler's Germany is distressing, to say the least.  That wasn't a choice on the table (except among the lunatic fringe).

[CAnnoneer]

In any case, to hear suggested that the US picked the wrong side and should have allied with Hitler's Germany is distressing, to say the least. 

I don't think I ever recommended an alliance. A true neutrality with an eventual "understanding" or some form of cold war until Hitler's death would have made a far better sense. But, Comrade Roosevelt was at the helm, while Churchill was still fighting WWI and was politically and strategically completely out of date.

That wasn't a choice on the table (except among the lunatic fringe).

Why not? Btw, "lunatic fringe" is a lot of attitude and little substance.