You need to step back and learn the full history of WW2. The US was isolationist in 1939, and only the events of Pearl Harbor catapulted the US into the war. It was not about doing the right thing, it was revenge and defending one’s nation that motivated the US.
Yet the US dropped nuclear weapons on what were predominately civilian populations, and each city (Hiroshima and Nagasaki) had little military value.
David was being kind.
The depth of these morals - DO not boil a kid (baby goat) in its mother’s milk 
The 10 commandments my ass. Can you list the ones your God has not violated?
Hey Guys! Sorry for the gap in communication! I’m finishing up my paper! YOu guys are AMAZING I’m really liking engaging on these topics. I’ll respond right after the paper! Ya’ll have given me a lot to think about! 3
That is all I desired. Personally, I did not want to or attempt to deconvert you. Just give you stuff to think about.
Please remember, the doors are always open, and I hope you visit often, if just to stimulate the thinking process.
Actually 4 copy and paste thanks! 
I know it’s crazy how long theists take, just to tell us they don’t have the time to respond. 
The next thing he will do is apologise for the misunderstanding, and then tell us that he’s not like any of the others, then disappear forever.
I think there’s a fallacy in there somewhere, but I can’t spot it. I don’t often employ reductio ad absurdum to make decisions.
I was not speaking theoretically but practically. I cannot imagine myself raping a child. There are lots of rules and mores I obey through Catholic indoctrination*** and because it is in my self interest to obey.(ethical egoism)
**Although I’ve ben an atheist for many years, I remain a cultural catholic in some ways.
Neither can I, though more salient is the fact that I can see the damage such a pernicious act would cause another human being, and though I believe this is always a choice, if I thought I could not live without harming a child, then I would rather end my own life.
Nor do I need to believe that any moral absolutes exist, in order for this to be true.
Here is a hypothetical scenario:
There are tribes of indigenous peoples in the far north, where resources are scarce. In times of hardship, where every calorie can spell the difference betoween life and death, is it morally incorrect to eat the flesh of one who died? Not murdered, just perished.
I can imagine myself rearranging the bone structure of a child rapist.
There is no acceptable excuse, this is an act of unspeakable horror.
Sorry, just the thought makes my blood boil. I never advocate violence, but if there was a good reason …
Interesting.
Like probably most relatively sane people I’d like to think that too. In reality I have no way of knowing how I would behave if faced with a credible threat of death as an alternative. For that reason I prefer to avoid hypothetical questions.
ADDENDUM. Context: I don’t even have firm rule for what to do if playing blackjack and sitting on 15.
Yeah, I remember that. The survivors ate the bodies of those who had died in the crash. Of course that traumatised the survivors, leaving them with crushing guilt.
I remember Pope Paul V1 made a point of stating publicly that the survivors had not committed any sin.
To Thread!
I finished my paper! I haven’t forgotten about you guys. I’m going to slow down in my posts cause I want to answer more thoroughly. You guys have excellent questions and I’m wanting to give full attention to them while going to school and work ahahah. I’ll try to respond as long as I can! No promises as to not give false expectations =] Looking forward to this!
Don’t forget to post a copy of your paper here…
The claim was that this was a moral absolute. To be absolute, it must be universally valid. Meaning if you can come up a single situation where it is not valid, even if the situation is absurd, then you can be sure it isn’t absolute. And presumably we will always be able to do this.
