The US Civil War as an example of God's Wrath.

Let's do the math then140,000/22 Million = 0.64 %
75,000/9 million = 0.83 %I'm not seeing much of an argument here. Maybe we should take into account the fact that Kentucky, Maryland, and Delaware were slave holding states?Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

That's untrue. You suggested the percentages meant something. You continued to say that even after I pointed out how trivial the difference in percentages was. 0.6% compared to 0.8%. Eventually, yes. But even after saying that you posted nonsense number arguments. Those are still numbers arguments.

I think there is an argument that the loser suffered more. Large portions of the South were utterly destroyed and their human capital was liberated. For period up until reconstruction, the Southern states were forced to take subordinate roles in how the country was governed.One might make similar arguments regarding WWIII. The allied casualties were something like four times as large as those of the axis countries. Yet Japan and Germany were utterly destroyed. Even if you discount the large number of Russian casualties, the allied total casualties were well over double those of the axis.

For one thing, you are discounting China and Russia. I only discounted Russia. I don't see any good reason to discount China. Or Russia either.On the other hand, I note that bad things happened to Job and his family without God's wrath being involved.

I don't support Faith's position. But it is impossible to argue that the south did not get the worst end of the war. Losing had tremendous repercussions.In some sense, the South never completely recovered from its beating. King Cotton was dead, and entire caste system was outlawed, and large portions of the south never figured out a substitute. A number of the deepest Southern states are among the poorest, leas educated, sucking off of the federal teat states in the Union.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

I don't want to make this a referendum on the civil war. I think that there is actually an open thread in which we can do that. But the idea that slavery was just a side issue is complete, Lost Cause, horse ca-ca.I see that you are Canadian. No harm done.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

I know he's on Mount Rushmore and all, but Lincoln is not exactly known as a world class theologian.

So your claim is that we can distinguish between real Christians and liberals by their acceptance of this Civil War, wrath of God position?You actually believe that this is a mainstream Christian position? Much is explained...

Okay I can agree with this. I'd also suggest that slavery ended up being the sole issue over which the sides could not compromise. Once the Missouri Compromise was undone in the Dred Scott decision, there was no way to settle the differences between North and South over the expansion of slavery to either sides satisfaction. In fact that problem led directly to Lincoln's election despite his receiving not one electoral vote from a southern state.Even after secession, the issue of what would happen in the territories and what was to happen to runaway slaves was probably going to lead to shooting.I won't bother with responding to your other posts given what you say here.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Good question.Fundamentalists believe that the United States is essentially the Western inheritors of all of the OT promises made to Israel. So its kinda similar to how you discipline your own kids but not the neighbors kids when they break into your Boone's Farm stash.

Cute, but probably wrong. Both sides raised real armies pretty quickly. Those armies did most of the fighting. At best the militias were ready reserves. Not a flaw, in my opinion, but perhaps Canadians feel differently. The militias/national guard still have essential roles. The constitution had a number of flaws, but the primary one was that support for slavery and and inequality was built into it. We've since amended the constitution to remove much of those issues.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Didn't make that claim. I said that the constitution was amended to address some specific important issues. And even then I said that they were mostly addressed.Yes I did see the smiley, but I also noted that you removed all of the context from what I said. Now that's funny.