tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20385137.post2102115169431039780..comments2023-11-02T04:21:10.340-04:00Comments on The way the Ball bounces: If God Commanded You To Kill, Would You Do It?BallBounceshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08776039024486455199noreply@blogger.comBlogger38125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20385137.post-82811782633255756352010-01-08T14:40:25.060-05:002010-01-08T14:40:25.060-05:00Not exactly but getting closer. I give everyone t...Not exactly but getting closer. I give everyone the benefit of the doubt. You've shown yourself to be civil, except by accident otherwise. I can therefore be equally civil in return while still in disagreement. You are not a regular liberal. My experience has shown that righteousness has often been the excuse for intolerance by liberals. Intolerance cannot be tolerated. Hostile attacks deserve a hostile response. This is why mutual respect is necessary for civil disagreement. <br />The intense competition between our ideas is war-like in many ways. Debates can escalate from civil to hostile very easily, so we need to actively push for respect first and hostility as punishment for hostility.<br /><br />Since you are an atheist you may have encountered Carl Sagan's essay on game theory and the Golden Rule. That is along the same lines as what I'm saying. I like Sagan's modified Golden Rule.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14162628029353058623noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20385137.post-79952456456057842332010-01-05T18:14:05.714-05:002010-01-05T18:14:05.714-05:00Are you offended that your ideology is is opposite...<i>Are you offended that your ideology is is opposite to mine? -because that is what I'm talking about.</i><br /><br />Oh, no. I'm not even offended by you calling liberals "intolerant", because even though it is a sweeping generalization and in my opinion incorrect, it is not in itself offensive.<br /><br />"Lacking in basic respect" or "spitting intolerance" are unnecessary, but I'm not that easy to offend.<br /><br />Writing a post in which you implore those who share your ideology to be civil with each other because a lack of civility would be shameful while at the same time stating that those who do not share it should not enjoy the same privilege (not to mention insulting them) - that is offensive.<br />Because what you're saying is that treating others in a disrespectful, uncivil manner is OK if those others are of a different political opinion than yourself. Which is offensive.<br /><br />(and no, "they are uncivil towards me" is no excuse, because you didn't say "be civil to those who are themselves civil" but "be civil to conservatives".)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20385137.post-49599328064090741392010-01-04T22:06:22.585-05:002010-01-04T22:06:22.585-05:00Are you offended that your ideology is is opposite...Are you offended that your ideology is is opposite to mine? -because that is what I'm talking about.<br /><br />I used a word you found incorrect. Sorry I didn't pull out a dictionary for you. Perhaps that is offensive in its own way. Forgive my carelessness. You then kindly corrected my diction, as though by doing so you would appear more correct in your other ideas. We know this does not follow as you are also incorrect in assuming I am a Christian and therefore offended by your false statements.<br /><br />So anyway, after a big logical loop-de-loop we are back where we started. You missed the point by trying very hard to misunderstand me.<br /><br />Maybe its impossible for us to reconcile and be "civil" in your definition of the term. My definition of civil when applied to our philosophical disagreements includes mutual respect. Our ideas are mutually exclusive in many respects. They are metaphorical enemies (not really enemies). <br /><br />I made some generalizations to the effect that people with "enemy ideology" typically are intolerant to their enemies being me. You are not typical, and don't ever change. In fact, if you could change your allies into being more tolerant I think we would all be happier. OK? <br /><br />Have a good one and stay civil.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14162628029353058623noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20385137.post-92062672236038734232010-01-03T16:37:47.708-05:002010-01-03T16:37:47.708-05:00@LastChancetosee:
Well I thank you for being civi...@LastChancetosee:<br /><br />Well I thank you for being civil too. I'm sorry that you are liberal but maybe you can take some wisdom back to your friends at least.<br /><br />Religious people are not stupid. Conservatives are not stupid. Treat them this way and you will be resisted and repelled in kind. Think this way and you will be easier to defeat as well.<br /><br />Try to remember the difference between euphemisms and literal language. When I call you an enemy I don't mean you personally of course. Your political ideology was the enemy. Perhaps we can just be adversaries if we brought civility back into the game?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14162628029353058623noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20385137.post-83017200041344867442010-01-02T17:35:32.195-05:002010-01-02T17:35:32.195-05:00Anyway Thank you for keeping civil. [...] That was...<i>Anyway Thank you for keeping civil. [...] That was all I wanted to get across. We are all in this together.</i><br /><br />... after which admirable sentiment you proceed to call each and every liberal<br />- intolerant<br />- lacking in basic respect<br />- spitting<br />- shameful and<br />- "the enemy"<br /><br />How very ... civil of you. If you view liberals as "the enemy", then there is no need for you to <i>"save your spitballs"</i> because I for one am one of them.<br /><br /><br />But that's OT. Good of you to bring up Abraham. Now there's a true believer!<br /><br /><br />Further OT: I like how the word verification of this site often almost, but not quite, generate extremely vulgar words :) .Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20385137.post-22413782802629768692010-01-02T14:20:40.293-05:002010-01-02T14:20:40.293-05:00Nice debate. Keep it up. I wonder why nobody has...Nice debate. Keep it up. I wonder why nobody has brought up Abraham yet?<br />Didn't he get orders direct from God to kill his boy as a test of loyalty?<br /><br />Anyway Thank you for keeping civil. Nobody ever changed their mind because they were called names or mocked. That was all I wanted to get across. We are all in this together. <br /><br />Lack of basic respect is a hallmark of the left. I typically respond in kind to their tone. Whatever they talk about, be it religion or abortion or socializing the world with AGW, its always spitting intolerance with the holier than thou liberal crowd.<br /><br />They deserve nothing but same from us, but for fellow conservatives to treat each other this way would be a shame. <br /><br />The constant attacks from atheists on religion is a symptom of their overriding liberal views. It is not an atheist trait any more than evil is an atheist trait. I fear the intolerance of men more than I fear religions or lack thereof. <br /><br />Liberals are extremely intolerant. Its not hard to imagine angry liberals forcing you all to be atheists. They are not able to do this but they are capable of it. They could just as easily force me to worship Gaia every Earth Day, or some other religion. <br /><br />I guess what I'm saying is save your spitballs for the enemy. <br /><br />(thanks for reading my rambling ;)Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14162628029353058623noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20385137.post-67695241170410157312010-01-02T09:43:18.505-05:002010-01-02T09:43:18.505-05:00You know something Philo ole boy I believe you are...You know something Philo ole boy I believe you are on the horns of a dilemma there. How can you prove me wrong. By coming up with a "good" morality? You know something akin to Christian morality. Or shall you prove me wrong by coming up with an evil morality something akin to Stalin's? You see your very definitions of good and evil have been determined by Christianity which of course has been formulated based on the concept of there being a universal Good and a universal Bad as established by a Being far greater than us. So as you are making your 'morality' up you will be oscillating between good and bad but the determinate of said good and bad is not you. For in a man's sight everything appears good. In a man's hind sight he realizes that what he thought was good was actually evil and sometimes what he decided was evil was actually good. But that's the joy of truly making your own up you have no rule by which to judge the outcome before you act. That being said most atheists 'make it up as I go along' types don't actually make it up at all they just follow without acknowledging.Joehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17314193532768891832noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20385137.post-56696089234034325652010-01-02T05:04:10.551-05:002010-01-02T05:04:10.551-05:00RKBall, about your sequence of scenarios:
My answe...RKBall, about your sequence of scenarios:<br />My answer would be: Never, unless I wanted to do it anyway.<br />But there is a fundamental problem with your scenarios: There are so many random events, circumstances and free decision by many people between Hitler being born and Hitler becoming what he is known for that it is impossible to decide beforehand what will happen and thus MAYBE having a reason to kill. To say that God knows anyway because of his all-knowingness means that there is nothing random in this world and no free will, in which case I do not have a decision to make: My answer is whatever God wants it to be.<br /><br />Punishing people for pre-crimes is immoral (Unless we're talking about the self-defense version of "punishing for pre-crime" here. In some cases the consequences are pretty clear, even allowing for random events and free will).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20385137.post-59143495622901676202010-01-02T00:58:53.960-05:002010-01-02T00:58:53.960-05:00Joe, thanks for your input. I don't need to r...Joe, thanks for your input. I don't need to respond to your last post, I only need underline it.philosoraptorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16713430387698527652noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20385137.post-71799514785871504812010-01-02T00:56:12.859-05:002010-01-02T00:56:12.859-05:00So there Philo have you stopped beating your wife ...So there Philo have you stopped beating your wife yet????<br /><br />Your question still presupposes your answer. It is invalid as any determinate of truth. Not that an atheistic mindset would understand that but nevertheless your question is invalid.<br /><br />Have fun creating your own morality but may I suggest that you use some sort of yard stick to measure that morality? After all how can you tell if you are being moral if you don't use some sort of standard? Personally I prefer the Christian standard of morality to the atheistic standard of morality. You know the atheistic morality of Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot etc etc etc. Oh dear such preference would be lost on someone who believes there is no objective morality wouldn't it? So have a nice life and if the urge strikes you please don't kill someone or steal something or break up any families through infidelity. I know that is difficult for those superior beings who vaunt their existence through atheism. I mean who am I a mere Christian to tell you what is moral.Joehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17314193532768891832noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20385137.post-57717759459412015282010-01-02T00:26:15.078-05:002010-01-02T00:26:15.078-05:00Joe, I asked a simple question about your actions ...Joe, I asked a simple question about your actions given a command from God. I didn't ask you what morality was or where it came from. Presumably, if God commands it, then it is moral, no?<br /><br />As for the source or nature of morality, I can figure it out, on my own and without God, despite what you think. I suggest you do some research into secular moral systems, of which there are many and into which a very great amount of thought has gone.philosoraptorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16713430387698527652noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20385137.post-24496501058651378302010-01-02T00:19:59.514-05:002010-01-02T00:19:59.514-05:00Well Philo ole boy you may think you have laid a c...Well Philo ole boy you may think you have laid a clever trap but in effect you have attempted to ask the question, "Have you stopped beating your wife yet" to prove the prevalence of spousal abuse. <br /><br />In like manner you presuppose that a Moral God would give an immoral command to one of His followers. All the moral people here have been answering morally. All the while you are insisting that because we struggle to imagine why God gave an immoral command there is no objective morality. <br /><br />Let me put it another way: Is it ever moral to kill another human being? Yes. When no other option is available to prevent the death of other human beings. <br /><br />Is refraining from violence ever immoral? Yes when your refusal to use violence results in needless deaths.<br /><br />That being said you can not prove the prevalence of spousal abuse by asking people if they have stopped beating their wives yet. Your question presupposes your answer and therefore is not a justification for your conclusion.<br /><br />So in response I am going to ask you the question is it possible for and atheist to act morally because atheism rejects morality?Joehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17314193532768891832noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20385137.post-70660363201008791542010-01-01T23:34:22.565-05:002010-01-01T23:34:22.565-05:00THIS would require yet another post!
Indeed, I th...<i>THIS would require yet another post!</i><br /><br />Indeed, I think it would require significantly more than a blog post. Supernatural claims require extraordinary evidence, and the weight of the natural evidence is already rather strongly against you.philosoraptorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16713430387698527652noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20385137.post-12683266220429175612010-01-01T23:32:55.776-05:002010-01-01T23:32:55.776-05:00If it is immoral, then I know it's not from Go...<i>If it is immoral, then I know it's not from God.</i><br /><br />As I said, you use your own moral judgement to determine whether to act or not. Doesn't this mean God is not required?philosoraptorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16713430387698527652noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20385137.post-70559558049745307992010-01-01T22:20:26.787-05:002010-01-01T22:20:26.787-05:00In response to the original question:
The questio...In response to the original question:<br /><br />The question doesn't provide enough data.<br /><br />It would depend on whether the command is moral or immoral.<br /><br />If it is moral, I wouldn't need a voice in my head to act morally.<br /><br />If it is immoral, then I know it's not from God.Suzannehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15038275826830875246noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20385137.post-22621918690685356062010-01-01T21:55:10.436-05:002010-01-01T21:55:10.436-05:00"All of these have possible non-supernatural ..."All of these have possible non-supernatural explanations. What evidence do you have that tips the balance in favour of your supernatural explanation? Keep in mind that the evidence for your supernatural explanation has to be incredibly compelling in order to justify the magnitude of the claim you're making. It's not just a physical mechanism you're proposing, right? Is it something outside physical reality? What exactly does that even mean?"<br /><br />THIS would require yet another post! I may get to it, but not tonite. I'm outta here -- coffee and beignets await me (tomorrow) at the Café du Monde in New Orleans!BallBounceshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08776039024486455199noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20385137.post-24531176748057823352010-01-01T21:51:00.554-05:002010-01-01T21:51:00.554-05:00Otherwise, you just haven't got enough inputs ...<i>Otherwise, you just haven't got enough inputs -- stardust and water, to get to good and evil. You just can't get there!<br /></i><br /><br />What is your evidence for making this claim? All evidence suggests that moral behaviour can and does evolve.<br /><br /><i>why something exists rather than nothing, why this universe exists instead of a dead, chaotic one, why reason exists, and logic works, why there is in fact good and evil, right and wrong, why we are endowed with a sense of purpose, longings for immortality, why think we have worth, value, etc.</i><br /><br />All of these have possible non-supernatural explanations. What evidence do you have that tips the balance in favour of your supernatural explanation? Keep in mind that the evidence for your supernatural explanation has to be incredibly compelling in order to justify the magnitude of the claim you're making. It's not just a physical mechanism you're proposing, right? Is it something outside physical reality? What exactly does that even mean?<br /><br /><i>It's more a reflection of our limitations and the sheer improbability of the question ever becoming a live option in any of our lives.</i><br /><br />On the contrary I see it as a very strong indicator of how much time you have spent reflecting on the implications of your beliefs, and consequently, how serious you are about those beliefs.philosoraptorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16713430387698527652noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20385137.post-71461320991665566672010-01-01T21:17:53.819-05:002010-01-01T21:17:53.819-05:00"Your first analogy is imprecise, the setup i..."Your first analogy is imprecise, the setup implies the answer: You would not be part of a anti-terror unit if you would answer that question with no."<br /><br />You would if your name was Chloe!BallBounceshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08776039024486455199noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20385137.post-66214208152732599592010-01-01T21:16:56.942-05:002010-01-01T21:16:56.942-05:00"Also, it suggests that, even in strong belie..."Also, it suggests that, even in strong believers, there is recognition that the concept of objective morality is deeply flawed"<br /><br />*Mmm. No. I disagree with this bit. Either moral realities objectively exist, i.e., good and evil actually exist, or they do not. <br /><br />Darwinism and subjective human moral reasoning are insufficient to get us to objective morality. Either good and evil are real, or they are not. If they are real, the universe must be a product of a moral agency. Otherwise, you just haven't got enough inputs -- stardust and water, to get to good and evil. You just can't get there!<br /><br />"belief in a 'God' that fits the real, omniscient, omnipotent description is an affront to natural human reason."<br /><br />No, I don't think so. The real omniscient, omnipotent description of God is what secures everything else going on in our lives -- why something exists rather than nothing, why this universe exists instead of a dead, chaotic one, why reason exists, and logic works, why there is in fact good and evil, right and wrong, why we are endowed with a sense of purpose, longings for immortality, why think we have worth, value, etc.<br /><br />The problem in answering this question is not with God's perfections. It's that it's such an uphill climb to get to "yes" -- especially since everything Christ taught goes in the opposite direction of your hypothetical. We are to love our enemies, not hate them. We are to lay down our lives for others. We are specifically commanded not to return evil for evil, etc. etc. etc. He healed one of the persons coming to crucify him.<br /><br />It's more a reflection of our limitations and the sheer improbability of the question ever becoming a live option in any of our lives.BallBounceshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08776039024486455199noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20385137.post-74628066052469335722010-01-01T21:03:41.651-05:002010-01-01T21:03:41.651-05:00"The responses I've seen on this blog see..."The responses I've seen on this blog seem to imply that no one here would immediately kill at God's command, and, it seems, would weigh the context and their own morality in the measure of their decision." <br /><br />*To obey instantly would require a track-record of communion with God, and hearing his voice, and learning to trust him, that I suspect no one in this discussion has achieved.<br /><br />Consider this:<br /><br />1. Ananias. When the Lord spoke to Ananias and told him to lay hands on Saul of Tarsus for his healing, he said, something like, "no, Lord -- for he's a persecutor of the Church." The Lord reassured him that Saul was a chosen vessel and Ananias should do as he was told. The Lord did not rebuke Ananias over this. Often we need more information, and the Lord graciously provides it. He's a person, not a despot. And he knows we are persons, not robotic manchurian candidates.<br /><br />2. Peter and eating un-kosher food. When Peter had the vision and the Lord told him to rise and eat the "unclean" food, he argued with God. He protested. Three times the vision was repeated. Finally, Peter was convinced. Once again, It was a give-and-take, back-and-forth expression of command, question, explanation, misgiving, etc.<br /><br />Now, if asking someone to eat something on the off-limits list requires such assurance, imagine the reassurance needed to obey a command to kill someone!<br /><br />And, no matter how clearly you state the hypothetical, it doesn't overcome the misgivings etc. that would have to be dealt with.<br /><br />So, the only reasonable answer can be one of hesitation.BallBounceshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08776039024486455199noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20385137.post-83717052713023976722010-01-01T20:48:19.811-05:002010-01-01T20:48:19.811-05:00The responses I've seen on this blog seem to i...The responses I've seen on this blog seem to imply that no one here would immediately kill at God's command, and, it seems, would weigh the context and their own morality in the measure of their decision. I'm at least partially comforted by that, in that it suggests that there is at least a faint desire not to subjugate our individual capacity for free choice and reason even among diehard believers. Also, it suggests that, even in strong believers, there is recognition that the concept of objective morality is deeply flawed (even if this is an unconcious recognition) and that (again, perhaps unconciously) the belief in a 'God' that fits the real, omniscient, omnipotent description is an affront to natural human reason.<br /><br />The only thing that worries me is that no one gives a straight answer to the question, which suggests that everyone is concealing their true beliefs on the issue, at least to some degree.philosoraptorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16713430387698527652noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20385137.post-53585589700506000922010-01-01T20:35:15.590-05:002010-01-01T20:35:15.590-05:00Let's try a hypothetical.
Again, for hypothe...Let's try a hypothetical. <br /><br />Again, for hypothetical purposes, God exists and communicates to an individual that he should "take out" another person. <br /><br />Scenario 1: that person is an obscure art student somewhere in Bavaria, creating and selling Van Gogh knock-offs at 5 deutche marks a pop.<br /><br />Scenario 2: that person is an obscure European politician, and he's just come to power .<br /><br />Scenario 3. His first name is Adolph, and he's just annexed Poland.<br /><br />Scenario 4. His last name is Hitler, and he's just ordered a bunch of ovens.<br /><br />Scenario 5. He's brought the whole world into war and is engaging in an active extermination campaign against Jews.<br /><br />Scenario 6. He's ordered bombing of your village, and you and your family, along with your pet dog Churchill, and all your friends and neighbors, one of whom will find a cure for cancer if he lives, will be wiped out.<br /><br />At what point along this sliding scale would you say, "you know, God's got a pretty good idea here, I think I'll do it"? <br /><br />Most of us would have increasing problems with it the higher up the scale we go -- but God has foreknowledge and sees the end from the beginning.<br /><br />Here's something to stimulate further thought on this most interesting and difficult of questions:<br /><br />The problem, arguably, is not that God, in a military/theocratic context, has in the past ordered killing, the problem, arguably, is that he hasn't ordered enough killing.<br /><br />If God would somehow cleanly "take out" all the hostiles, and leave the friendlies standing, we'd probably be pretty happy. Wouldn't it be great if an omniscient God convicted people at the pre-crime stage and took them out with a fatal dose of, e.g., killer flu (or the dreaded blogitis)?<br /><br />What pre-crimes would be on our takeout list?<br /><br />Murder?<br />Child rape?<br />Forced rape of an adult?<br />Gluing a cat to the side of a highway?<br />...<br />Posting ill-intended comments on the Ball Bounces?<br /><br />OK, I was just kidding with that last one, guys!<br /><br />* * *<br /><br />I'm in Buffalo, headed for New Orleans, got my velcro-laced shoes for quick-through airport security, and will be assessing the need for velcro underwear on future flights.BallBounceshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08776039024486455199noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20385137.post-5205722157225570962010-01-01T20:10:13.441-05:002010-01-01T20:10:13.441-05:00" lastchancetosee said...
Your first analogy ..." lastchancetosee said...<br />Your first analogy is imprecise," etc.....<br /><br />A thoughtful response. I half-way agree with about half of it!<br /><br />"Religion allows people, by transferring their responsibility for their actions on to god, to justify whatever atrocity as "God's wish". <br /><br />*I agree that toxic religion, or mis-use of legitimate religion, does indeed allow this. A definite downside to religion. But, I'm not a big fan of religion.<br /><br />"And since it is inherently impossible for the believer to separate truly having been commanded by a god to do something from believing it to be so this applies not only to the hypothetical under discussion, but to the real world as well."<br /><br />We part company here a bit. I don't think it's inherently impossible, because this would mean that God was not able to create a species that could in fact hear his voice, and this would be incompatible with God's unlimited creative powers. Worrisome, maybe, but not impossible.<br /><br />Jesus is a great example. He clearly loved and heard his Father's voice.BallBounceshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08776039024486455199noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20385137.post-53158235113899842122010-01-01T18:56:26.634-05:002010-01-01T18:56:26.634-05:00Joe, are you saying, therefore, that you would not...Joe, are you saying, therefore, that you would not kill if God commanded it?philosoraptorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16713430387698527652noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20385137.post-28820097533375199012010-01-01T18:30:01.434-05:002010-01-01T18:30:01.434-05:00Last to see has lost the argument and is now just ...Last to see has lost the argument and is now just flailing about making himself look more absurd by the posting.<br /><br />Since last to see doesn't believe in God and certainly doesn't understand HIM, his "get a command to kill that undeniable comes from god. Voice in your head, notarized contract, whatever. He's almighty, he'll figure something out." is moot.<br /><br />From my perspective I view life as being a gift from God. I view human life as being one of the highest gifts of God. Jesus Christ and His Grace as being the only higher gift that comes to mind. Since human life is a gift from God I reject the Giver of that gift should I destroy life. Therefore I could not be an executioner. However I could be a soldier, a policeman or even kill a known human threat to those around me. Based on the understanding that if I don't kill such a person he is going to kill those around me. In other words I would kill if such a killing were known to prevent a greater number of deaths. <br /><br />For example I would not have killed Hitler until it was evident that he was about to kill others. If there were another way to prevent Hitler's planned killing ie put him in prison for the rest of his life then problem solved no deaths required. In the absence of any other solution then I would kill Hitler knowing that if I didn't kill him, he would kill millions of others.Joehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17314193532768891832noreply@blogger.com