Genocide in the Bible
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 2 Votes - 4 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
30-08-2013, 12:07 PM
RE: Genocide in the Bible
Quote: You are saying it is not genocide if it is justified. That has not been agreed upon.

Try as you might to blur the lines, there is a difference between targeting civilian populations in order to bring about a surrender and targeting civilian populations in lieu of ever obtaining a surrender.

As we all know, once the Allied armies reached Germany, they crushed the bodies of women and children and brought home the virgins as weregild, and today trans-Rhenish France is as integral to the republic as Anjou. Wait, what?

So, it's not genocide if they deserve it? I have the weirdest déjà vu typing that...

I’ve decided to look more from your point of view, and to be consistent, I’ll have to say that an omnipotent god caused genocide, The Holocaust, the Inquisition, etc. Does that help? Let’s get on to the meat of the issues.

Because I’m capable (praise God!) of talking about, at this point in my life, ANY issue without adding emotionalism to the mix. Therefore, you’re going to have to prove to me how genocide is bad before we move on. Can you do that from a naturalist’s perspective or do you have to borrow biblical Greek words like “compassion,” “love” and “empathy” first?

I think the move of scholars to prove an evolved sense of compassion and etc. by looking at social insects and colonies of rhesus monkeys is patronizing at best and the worst sort of Darwinist elitism at worst.

And at the risk of invoking Godwin again, I have news for you. Adolf Hitler was a person, a real person with desires, wishes and feelings, not a caricature or a cartoon. A person. And he had 10,000 jackbooted persons beneath him who said genocide is fine and natural. Prove him wrong and you’ll do the Western World a favor and dish on the HB to boot.

Ready, set, go.

PS. Before you orgasm then tell everyone PJ supported Hitler on the forum, I FEEL Hitler was wrong and you FEEL Hitler was wrong but you’re going to need more than feelings to provide solid evidence that genocide is wrong.

Let me give you another example. All kinds of atheists on this forum have said to me, some of them repeating themselves over and again, that if anyone goes to Hell and there is a god they hate god forever and they will never love him. Do those feelings make Hell disappear? You’d think so, the way they act…

I’ve made my case that the actions in Canaan are understood as a just war. I’ve said enough and so I walk in your shoes now that is was all pure genocide. For all we know, every Canaanite went to Heaven, so telling me there’s no Heaven while saying god was evil for killing Canaanites is incomplete, right?

An omnipotent loving god can make a Heaven. Do you disagree?

Quote: Wait, people can be irredeemably wicked now? That's not what I'm led to believe that Jesus guy said...

Likely due to your lack of familiarity with the scriptures. Paul spoke about one who has their conscience seared as with a hot iron. In modern English, they heard and heard and stopped hearing and while living longer god was done. What you keep missing about Jesus judging is also an omniscient god who is therefore able to perfectly judge everyone. Do you disagree?

Quote: If I went back in time to stop Hitler, I wouldn't kill him. I'd just let him know that his name would be used for centuries as a lazy touchstone by those without actual arguments to make.


Survey says… beep! COP OUT. Because every honest person I’ve asked this question said, “That’s a tough question.”

So I’ll ask again, “Can an omniscient god play god or can only atheists play god and tell god what he did wrong?”

Quote: No, it means they're making a moral decision. It's "playing God" only if your morality is the degenerate cowardice of a willing slave.

I see, so the common usage of “playing god” that has been used to describe merciful instances of euthanasia means you believe even doctors are slaves and degenerates? How typical of an atheist’s excessive arrogance. You’re sick if you don’t mind my saying so. If you cared about suffering, why wouldn’t you let a doctor “play god” and end suffering?

[snipped] because I admitted it was genocide to help you past the line you wouldn’t cross without it.

Quote: When you consider how the Nazis failed to kill all the Jews it wasn't genocide in the dictionary sense. But why quibble with words?

OUT-GODWINNED, son!

If that is so, there’s never been a true genocide against any people group in history. The attempt is the genocide even if partially fulfilled.

I’d type out-dictionary-ed, son, but that seems petty. Smile
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-08-2013, 12:24 PM
RE: Genocide in the Bible
Quote: Doesn't it surprise you sometimes that god's circles match so closely to your own... and that this is true for other people when they look at god also... even though your circles don't match theirs...? Could it be that for some of these people the god they worship is one they've constructed in their own minds rather than an actual god? If so, how can we go about finding whose picture of God is correct and whose is incorrect?

No, it doesn’t surprise me at all. Not one tiny bit. I’m not some huge B.F. Skinner fan but environment does determine a lot of things. For example, when people have a poor father or father figure the doctrine of god as father is really tough for those people to puzzle through.

I know how we find the right pictures of god. And therefore it doesn’t surprise me when those who are able to interpret the Bible with skill agree with me on many of the issues. I calls ‘em as I sees ‘em!

Quote: Which raises another old question: How did you decide that God was the good one and Satan was the evil one? What moral reasoning did you apply?

I used the intellectual reasoning the Bible provided in situ, and the moral reasoning my conscience provided. Since I know Satan’s “moves” if you will, I have hundreds of personal examples where following his dictates led to his “fruit” or destruction and where following Jesus led to blessing and even immortal life.

If you’re asking if I am a reasoning person who has reasonable doubts, I’d ask you if you never act on any moral or personal decision until you have all reasonable doubts researched away and cleared.

I mean, you’re kind of famous for your tagline:

“Give me your argument in the form of a published paper, and then we can start to talk,” which is likely the most oft-putting conversation starter I can ever imagine using in polite conversation. If I tried a line like yours on my wife about any issue of import she’d slap me silly… and I’d say, “Thanks for making me suffer! I deserved it!”

Do you need a published paper to make all important decisions or do you go from your gut? Did you choose to not be a god-believer based on a published paper, and if so, in the paper’s references, were conversations with god cited in the footnotes?

To come back to my point:

God has the free will to do what he wants, good. Man has the free will to do what he wants, sometimes good, sometimes evil.

Which is why I will win this thread at the end of the day, and pretty much every day, forever. Since atheists here insist god is wrong for commanding a genocide, they are implying that genocide is a moral evil and therefore requires moral accountability.

Holy @#!#@$! I’d give a lot of money to hear an atheist say they believe in good, evil, moral judgment and moral accountability, without their usual wimpy “let me justify that by saying I’m not sure my moral standards apply to everyone for every instance, or even exist.”

Dude, I’ll be honest with you. On both threads I started I merely wanted to point out the extreme hypocrisy of atheists knowing pain and suffering is part of the natural plane of existence, and then saying god screwed up by not making an unnatural plane for them to live on. Meanwhile, every atheist is getting annoyed at how I can’t seem to understand how evil god is for commanding genocide? An evil god from people who think evil is an off concept? That’s like a double bonus!

Give me your moral standards as absolutes and unequivocal (you know, the way Christians always go on about good and evil as realities) in the form of a published paper, and then we can start to talk about how god is not as smart as you and never realized, I mean he never even thought, “Geez, I really CAN make a world without suffering or genocide. I forgot I was omnipotent there for a while. Why didn’t I think of that? Thank you, atheists and philosophers!”

I apologize for my length.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-08-2013, 12:31 PM
RE: Genocide in the Bible
Quote: Wow, and your last post to me was warning me of the dangers of being Prideful. You might, er, take the plank, er, out of your eye before ye..... ahem, well I'm sure you know it.

Don't blame me because you are getting owned by people who aren't me. That's just the breaks. I'm no super philosopher or anything, just a guy, you know, with a day job and all.

I’m sensing that your spiritual gift is… encouragement. Go on.

Quote:So to recap - you said there was "Never" a context in which you could call [imaginary] God's actions genocide, and then what 6 days later you finally admitted it was in fact genocide, EXCEPT that we had to take into account "CONTEXT." After I destroyed the shitty little "CONTEXT" that you brought up first, (OH MY THEY WERE SO SCARED) - your great retort was????? Crickets. You were wrong, you barely owned it, and now you're trying the old "RATIONALIZATION" thing, where you justify why its NOT SO BAD. But somewhere I had created a bad syllogism and because of that I lost by claiming that [imaginary] God committed GENOCIDE and is an immoral fuck because of it? Huh?

By the way, Genocide is so bad and your only retort is CONTEXT? God committed Genocide, and no, its NEVER, EVER OK to kill women and children who are unarmed and not part of the battle. The fact you would justify such a thing speaks VOLUMES about your character. No real man would ever stand there and kill women and children because anyone fucking commanded it. God did, and that makes him a real fuckstick.

I don't have to put SHIT in context, that's your job, to try to justify the UNCONSCIONABLE. There is NO CONTEXT when killing women and children is ever ok. Just because you say "yes it is, sometimes when God does it its ok" ever make it ok, ever.

Oh, and on the above....

I’m sensing you are unwilling or unable to talk about moral issues without getting emotional. Should I back off a bit and let you cool out some?

I will admit to you that god made genocide, because the last thing I should have ever tried with intelligent atheists is to tell them the context of the scriptures.

I just don’t understand how you can say “god is immoral”. From where did you derive your absolute, non-subjective moral base? I get my morals from my conscience and the Bible reflects them accurately. Do you believe that you have a conscience?

Quote:Drone strikes that kill noncombatants are wrong, period.
The A bomb was wrong, period.

Uh-huh. It is also wrong if one nation has it and then a second nation has it as a deterrent? Really?

Quote: Quarantine is not killing anyone.

Get out to movies or read sci-fi books much? Come see me at DragonCon if you would.

Quote:You're a warring tribe in the middle of nowhere and you want to justify your actions to maintain your group cohesiveness and overcome feelings of massive guilt so you invent a story of having the approval of a "God of War" that becomes something a little bigger than you intended but it does help to alleviate the guilt and control the masses.


Oh! Thanks! NOW I understand the HB. Man, that’s a relief.

Quote:Wow - well I guess my moral compass is intact, what a miracle!

What moral compass? How can a naturalist have a “moral compass”? An animal can’t choose cruelty or hate. Are you saying a person has a conscience, a soul, is more than an animal? Dude, they might revoke your Atheist Card.

Quote:Why was God so into instructing people to kill everyone in the old days, and now the message seems so much different? Love and sacrifice for you and all this laying down his life shit? Oh, right, the PEOPLE changed, therefore god's message changed. Coincidence? No, people got tired of the old message, wanted a new one. It's still fucked up, but at least no one thinks they can [legally] kill someone in their town for not believing the right things. (Maybe he changed his mind about killing people?). Nah, that doesn't make any sense. Now we kill people over land and money, which was the same reason they did it back then, but they just came up with some better reasons to justify their behaviors. They were warring tribes find an excuse for what they wanted to do anyway, its so obvious. Why would you fight the fact that it makes so much more sense when you read it this way instead of doing all these intellectual gymnastics, that do or at least should cause you pause in a moral sense? Right, because you HAVE to to keep your faith. Bummer for you.

Um, my New Testament said Jesus judges people. What are you talking about? Hell is 1,000 times worse than a genocide, isn’t it? Where did you get your perspective?

Quote:You go ahead and critique my Syllogisms all day long. I'm more concerned with keeping the whole picture, and my values, in CONTEXT. Of course you want to argue the logic side and keep emotion out of it because its a pretty sensitive issue, this killing women and children in cold blood stuff.

God commanded Genocide against peoples because of their beliefs, and you think its A-OK. That's fucked. Your assertion that there cannot be anything in the bible that could be "properly" characterized as Genocide has been destroyed on this post, but hey, what the hell, knock yourself out champ, whatever gets you through.

Ah, actually in the very post I wrote, I said it’s NEVER okay to kill people for their BELIEFS but sometimes it is okay to kill people. Murder isn’t capital punishment isn’t genocide isn’t quarantine, right?

So one last question if you don’t mind? If you knew there was a god for real, would you have to agree with god’s moral stance on ALL issues before trusting him? Are there other issues besides genocide that are holding you back?

Thanks.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-08-2013, 12:36 PM
RE: Genocide in the Bible
Quote: 1. What was the syllogism I botched? Happy to correct it, haven't done these in a long time.

2. Please kindly show me what argument you destroyed of mine, and I'll show you how you got owned on this thread. Should we keep the virgins for ourselves to rape and plunder? Why not, its not like we have a morality outside of our own shitty little tribe right?

Um, I’m okay by now with your angry rants, because it not only sounds like you’re an atheist with morals but one with great moral indignation.

“If we have moral indignation on the issues, do we expect a creator god to have moral indignation on any issue?”

Quote:3. Right, you ran away from this argument forever, pretended to not read the bible verse I quoted you, then asked for it again even though it was pasted in the thread itself, and then ignored it some more - and I asked for a response like 4 times. Now you are getting properly owned, only because I started a special thread just so you couldn't say we were off topic, but cheers on your syllogism critique. Hopefully that reduces the blow of the Old Testament coming out your ears with the blood of innocents. Don't even start with me on people deserving death because of sin - you completely ran away from what it takes to go to hell for a million years, and you know the answer - look lustfully at a women one time. A victimless crime, and I DESERVE death and eternal hell for a completely natural urge? You are on crack if you say yes, you are LYING if you say no. So, you ignore it. Just what I would expect from a christian, to ignore that which he does not want to admit.

I admit it all, since that will help you clear the red and think straight. I AGREE with you that it’s wrong per se to kill babies who are moral innocents. Therefore, you believe adults are not moral innocents. It almost sounds (somebody get me an ambulance, I’m having heart failure!) like you believe adults “sin”.

I mean, holy @#@!#! An ATHEIST actually said “kids are innocent, adults are not innocent, and as a CLASS.” Holy @#@!#@!

Quote:4. You defending the Messiah? Poor guy needs to come out, and he wants someone to drag him. Calls 'em like I see 'em. I can't explain the fascination with the insanity, but it IS fascinating just the same. More fun than watching you run away from the facts of a heartless god who is somehow, mysteriously now full of "LOVE." Talk about Bi-Polar, God's got some issues baby!

I think you're feeling a bit bitter at me for directing a thread in your direction that so patently challenges your beliefs, but that's ok. Bitter away. A little suffering is good for you, just not ALS!

If a little suffering is good for me and YOU say so, can we close the other thread and admit I’ve won?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-08-2013, 12:38 PM
RE: Genocide in the Bible
Don't bother responding to my many brilliancies in this thread today, I'm peace-ing it out until Tuesday to visit DragonCon in Atlanta. I won't be wearing a costume, but wish I was (Gandalf, Neo, Spock).

Everyone has raised some great issues here, especially that--wow--atheists believe in moral outrages and evil. Good job. Cool down some this weekend and pray and relax a little.

"Til next time, mazel tov!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-08-2013, 01:06 PM
RE: Genocide in the Bible
(30-08-2013 12:38 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  Don't bother responding to my many brilliancies in this thread today...

Now, if you'd said that first, I could have saved myself the time.

(30-08-2013 11:37 AM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  It’s hard to believe in talking donkeys, yet you and I know both Christians and atheists who are asses and talk out of their asses. Smile I’ll save Noah for another time. Let’s just say it was a big boat that only needed one species of dog and one of cats aboard, and no sea life in it.

That's incredibly shallow and inadequate. The vast majority of aquatic species would have seen their habitats destroyed just as surely as terrestrial species (for the water must be either fresh or saltwater). And what is a 'dog'? A common ancestor of the modern genus canis? A common ancestor of modern canidae? A common ancestor of modern caniforms?

It certainly is irrelevant, though.

(30-08-2013 11:37 AM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  Huh? Why is it impossible prove whether some suffering is bad or good? I’ve given two dozen examples of both in these threads. All I’m asking is for you to commit to one of three choices:

1. All suffering is unneeded/unwanted/unwarranted/bad or

2. Some suffering is appropriate (like, I’m thrilled if a paedophile feels intense guilt and suffers from those guilt feelings or

3. All suffering has meaning and purpose

It sure seems like every atheist here picks #1. Is that your pick? I do think pick #1 is part of an immature viewpoint, and I’ve said so, but I honestly want to know your opinion.

Nobody here thinks 1. Nobody here has claimed to think 1. The options you present are insufficient regardless.

I think this might be a better place for that discussion. In any case - not relevant.

Now...
(30-08-2013 12:07 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  Because I’m capable (praise God!) of talking about, at this point in my life, ANY issue without adding emotionalism to the mix. Therefore, you’re going to have to prove to me how genocide is bad before we move on. Can you do that from a naturalist’s perspective or do you have to borrow biblical Greek words like “compassion,” “love” and “empathy” first?

Those words have nothing to do with the Bible, in its Greek translation or otherwise. Attempting to claim that they do is fantastically dishonest.

"Love" is a Germanic word and "compassion" is a Latin word. So much for "biblical Greek". And of course, even their Greek equivalents had been discussed philosophically centuries prior to the writing of the bible.

(30-08-2013 12:07 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  I think the move of scholars to prove an evolved sense of compassion and etc. by looking at social insects and colonies of rhesus monkeys is patronizing at best and the worst sort of Darwinist elitism at worst.

Groups of individuals live better lives when they work together. Cohesion and mutual affection increase their survivability and quality of life. In what ludicrous sense does that have to do with 'elitism'?

(30-08-2013 12:07 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  And at the risk of invoking Godwin again, I have news for you. Adolf Hitler was a person, a real person with desires, wishes and feelings, not a caricature or a cartoon. A person. And he had 10,000 jackbooted persons beneath him who said genocide is fine and natural. Prove him wrong and you’ll do the Western World a favor and dish on the HB to boot.

Ready, set, go.

PS. Before you orgasm then tell everyone PJ supported Hitler on the forum, I FEEL Hitler was wrong and you FEEL Hitler was wrong but you’re going to need more than feelings to provide solid evidence that genocide is wrong.

Wow. Hitler was a real person? I guess it's true when they say you never stop learning new things...

This is beyond the remit of the thread. I admire your acrobatics, in shifting the discussion to "is genocide even a bad thing", since you cannot possibly deny that the Hebrews' actions in the Old Testament constitute genocide, or at least attempted genocide, if held to the same definition as modern acts which are so known.

Your transparent and half-assed attempts to reframe the discussion aren't particularly relevant. I'll substantiate my morality as soon as you do.

(but I note that you are the one who's one vision away from thinking it is justified in the present day, given that you admit that it can be justified)

(30-08-2013 12:07 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  Let me give you another example. All kinds of atheists on this forum have said to me, some of them repeating themselves over and again, that if anyone goes to Hell and there is a god they hate god forever and they will never love him. Do those feelings make Hell disappear? You’d think so, the way they act…

That's because we don't support infinitely disproportionate retribution. Relevance?

(30-08-2013 12:07 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  I’ve made my case that the actions in Canaan are understood as a just war. I’ve said enough and so I walk in your shoes now that is was all pure genocide. For all we know, every Canaanite went to Heaven, so telling me there’s no Heaven while saying god was evil for killing Canaanites is incomplete, right?

Does a just war include slaughtering non-combatants after obtaining victory?

It may well be just to wage a given war. That has nothing to do with subsequent treatment of the defeated peoples.

(30-08-2013 12:07 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  An omnipotent loving god can make a Heaven. Do you disagree?

No. Relevance?

(30-08-2013 12:07 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  Likely due to your lack of familiarity with the scriptures. Paul spoke about one who has their conscience seared as with a hot iron. In modern English, they heard and heard and stopped hearing and while living longer god was done. What you keep missing about Jesus judging is also an omniscient god who is therefore able to perfectly judge everyone. Do you disagree?

No. Relevance?

I'm well aware that there are denominations who assert that some are indeed irredeemable.

Elsewhere you have stated that you don't believe Christianity to be a necessary precursor to salvation. Those two viewpoints don't often intersect. Don't tell me you've become a Calvinist, PleaseJesus...

(30-08-2013 12:07 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  Survey says… beep! COP OUT. Because every honest person I’ve asked this question said, “That’s a tough question.”

I would say it's an impossible question, because the parameters of the scenario are so wildly insufficiently defined as to leave forming a reasoned opinion impossible.

(30-08-2013 12:07 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  I see, so the common usage of “playing god” that has been used to describe merciful instances of euthanasia means you believe even doctors are slaves and degenerates? How typical of an atheist’s excessive arrogance. You’re sick if you don’t mind my saying so. If you cared about suffering, why wouldn’t you let a doctor “play god” and end suffering?

People like you are the ones who call it playing god. But thanks for busting out personal insults again. It's delightful.

(I mean, "if you don't mind my saying so"; classic! my, you're a facetious little son of a gun... Rolleyes )

Can you provide examples of cases where doctors: a) acted without a patient's consent to perform euthanasia; b) cited mercy as their motive; c) described their own actions as "playing god"?

I'll wait.

(30-08-2013 12:07 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  If that is so, there’s never been a true genocide against any people group in history. The attempt is the genocide even if partially fulfilled.

I’d type out-dictionary-ed, son, but that seems petty. Smile

Do you accept or repudiate the following:

If we accept as genocide the actions that are defined as such in contemporary analysis (e.g. Rwanda, Guatemala, Nazi Germany, Armenia, etc.) then the same definition would apply to the actions of the Hebrews as described in the Old Testament.

Finally...
(30-08-2013 12:24 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  Dude, I’ll be honest with you. On both threads I started I merely wanted to point out the extreme hypocrisy of atheists knowing pain and suffering is part of the natural plane of existence, and then saying god screwed up by not making an unnatural plane for them to live on. Meanwhile, every atheist is getting annoyed at how I can’t seem to understand how evil god is for commanding genocide? An evil god from people who think evil is an off concept? That’s like a double bonus!

You're just special. Do you work at being so obtuse, or does it come naturally?

Either god does not exist (note: this is what we think), in which case the facts of pain and suffering are perfectly explicable,
or,
god does exist, in which case they are not, because an all-powerful god could do better but didn't.

You may recognize this as a philosophical problem which predates Christianity. Somehow I doubt your empty responses bring anything new to the table.

And then your demented follow-up is just "how can atheists have morals?". Seriously? That's all you've got?

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like cjlr's post
31-08-2013, 09:50 PM (This post was last modified: 01-09-2013 08:03 AM by Skippy538.)
RE: Genocide in the Bible
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PK7P7uZFf5o

How did anyone decide that the [imaginary] god of the bible was good? Powerful, yes, but good? Not good generally speaking, just good for us because he happens to be on our side, except when he's "mad" at us, then not so much.

OK to the issues at hand.

(30-08-2013 12:31 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  I’m sensing you are unwilling or unable to talk about moral issues without getting emotional. Should I back off a bit and let you cool out some?

I will admit to you that god made genocide, because the last thing I should have ever tried with intelligent atheists is to tell them the context of the scriptures.

I just don’t understand how you can say “god is immoral”. From where did you derive your absolute, non-subjective moral base? I get my morals from my conscience and the Bible reflects them accurately. Do you believe that you have a conscience?

1. Emotionality - I'm a bit new to this internet forum thing - seriously, and CAPS to me represent emphasis - because I am bad at and don't really have time for bold text (I don't even know how). That said, however, if taking women and children's lives in cold blood doesn't raise your ire a little bit, well, either your are lying to yourself or you are cold. My guess, however, is that if you saw that type of behavior on your evening news, you would get a bit hot about it, and you would be incensed. You have internalized a habit, however, of not letting those feelings of injustice rise in you when you read about [imaginary] god doing it. Feel free to be cold about god's cold-blooded killing if you wish, but all genocide makes me mad.

2. You say The Bible reflects the morals you have received from your conscience accurately. What a relief. For a minute there I thought you were going to say you agreed with Genocide and slavery too, but, what a minute! You did, you did say the "bible reflects" your morals accurately? Which ones? Not those two I hope. Cruelty and punishment are part of your moral system? If not, on what grounds do you reject them since the bible so clearly does not, and has encouraged them (in god's name of course) until about 400 years ago. How convenient for your religion to get with the times, but there were: crusades, witch drownings, witch burnings, burnings for heresy, thousands of years of slavery, all under the guise of the christian god. That's where your morals come from? I bet not.

Quote: Uh-huh. It is also wrong if one nation has it and then a second nation has it as a deterrent? Really?

Do you see what you did there - we were talking specifically about A-bomb strikes on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, that was a nice twist of the facts to make it about preventative defense between two equals, but nice try. Further, Hiroshima and Nagasaki occurred when we were still at war with the enemy, whereas the Genocide commanded in the Bible (which I will show later was actually SOP - standard operating procedure) happened after the war was over. Which means it could easily have been avoided, you know, since the war was over and all. Go back and ....... hmmmm. Yep, not necessary. Also - Twisting an opponents argument to say something it does not say so you can make a point you like is dishonest. Are you mindful of the deceit when you do this or is it just a habit of christian apologetics?

Quote:Quarantine is not killing anyone.

Get out to movies or read sci-fi books much? Come see me at DragonCon if you would.

1. Read a dictionary much? quar·an·tine [kwawr-uhn-teen, kwor-, kwawr-uhn-teen, kwor-] Show IPA noun, verb, quar·an·tined, quar·an·tin·ing.
noun
1.
a strict isolation imposed to prevent the spread of disease. A few years ago I researched moving to Europe and one of the issues was the quarantine of my dog. They had to hold him for three months before he could come live with me. When I submitted my dog for "quarantine" - did they actually meant I was submitting him to be put down? Maybe I don't watch enough Sci-Fi, maybe Sci-Fi is where people go to learn how to use words any way they please. In the "regular" world, words have definitions and we abide them.

Quote:You're a warring tribe in the middle of nowhere and you want to justify your actions to maintain your group cohesiveness and overcome feelings of massive guilt so you invent a story of having the approval of a "God of War" that becomes something a little bigger than you intended but it does help to alleviate the guilt and control the masses.

Quote:Oh! Thanks! NOW I understand the HB. Man, that’s a relief.

If I were you, I would say something pathetic and condescending like "you're welcome, glad to help." But it does make a LOT of sense if you think about warring tribes trying to keep cohesion amid stress, doesn't it? Nevermind, common sense is not so common.

Quote:Wow - well I guess my moral compass is intact, what a miracle!

Quote:What moral compass? How can a naturalist have a “moral compass”? An animal can’t choose cruelty or hate. Are you saying a person has a conscience, a soul, is more than an animal? Dude, they might revoke your Atheist Card.

You equivocate consciousness with a soul? Seriously? How do you jump from one to the other? Magic? Right, magic. Having consciousness does not necessitate a soul. We can get into this, but honestly its beneath you.

Quote:SNiP They were warring tribes find an excuse for what they wanted to do anyway, its so obvious. Why would you fight the fact that it makes so much more sense when you read it this way instead of doing all these intellectual gymnastics, that do or at least should cause you pause in a moral sense? Right, because you HAVE to to keep your faith. Bummer for you.

Quote:Um, my New Testament said Jesus judges people. What are you talking about? Hell is 1,000 times worse than a genocide, isn’t it? Where did you get your perspective?

I stand corrected. God acts like as much of a dick in the NT as he does the OT. Good point. My only point was that at least under the new covenant, I don't have to worry about being stoned in this lifetime for my lack of beliefs (unlike, say, the pilgrims at Salem for example) but mainly that is because of the rule of secular law and the separation of church and state . This is a double bonus for me, because hell is a ridiculous concept and since it happens after I die, not a real huge threat to me. But I will concede - Jesus was at least as big of a dick as Yahweh. Good point.

Quote:Ah, actually in the very post I wrote, I said it’s NEVER okay to kill people for their BELIEFS but sometimes it is okay to kill people. Murder isn’t capital punishment isn’t genocide isn’t quarantine, right?

You sure love that word NEVER. Every time you use it you should cringe in anticipation that I am going to shred your assertion with the bible. That's how this thread got started, remember? I said genocide, you said never, I slammed you with Numbers 30.

So, read the bible much? If you believe in the bible, it definitely is ok to kill people for their beliefs. Deuteronomy 13:6-9. Not only is it okay, its commanded for non-believing family members. I'll repeat with emphasis because sometimes you try to skim over the bible verses I quote you - NOT JUST OK, BUT COMMANDED. I would expect that, because you used the word NEVER again - you will specifically address this point in your retort.

Quote:So one last question if you don’t mind? If you knew there was a god for real, would you have to agree with god’s moral stance on ALL issues before trusting him? Are there other issues besides genocide that are holding you back?

Question 1: I don't mind at all. *If I knew there was a god for real* What does that even mean? If I knew that A god existed, but just not which god? By the very nature of being god, I would presume he would be able to communicate with me better than my sister with two cans and a piece of string between them, right? So why wouldn't I be overwhelmed by the massive, overwhelming TRUTH of his communications? Why would it have to be anything less than 100%? Ever? Why would I have to work so hard at it? Wouldn't the amazing power of the truth be so overwhelming that you would just fall to your knees in acknowledgement that this is CLEARLY not man made religion, but TRUTH in its highest form? What does it say about us that we are willing to accept anything less than full or massive majority agreement with god and his book? PLUS - if the Holy Spirit was real, and I was even in 75% agreement, wouldn't its power overcome me and take me the rest of the way?

Question 2: Holding me back? Like I'm right on the precipice of belief, just about to fall over? Hilarious. Of course its not just genocide, but genocide is a pretty important fact about your [imaginary] god's character. I would say I would have to believe in 90% of the religion to have any chance of believing. For Christianity, I'm probably at less than 5% agreement, mainly because for everything you say is good in the bible, I can find a direct contradiction, which really nullifies the supposed good. Here's a non-exhaustive list of things in the bible or required by your faith that I find offensive or ridiculous, and I'm skipping the ones that are just offensive to my intellect like Noah's ark, Jonah, talking animals, yada yada (I'm not an eight-year old so those are out the window right away).

The doctrine of original sin.
The doctrine of blood atonement.
Pretty much anything Paul had to say.
The primacy of jesus over the individual he created. See Galations 3:13.
The idea the world is moved by god and his angels or satan and his demons instead of natural forces. (Black and White thinking, good v. evil thinking).
The idea of sin v. the idea of ignorance. (in real life people don't do what's good for them more out of ignorance than out of a will of rebellion, but the bible doesn't recognize this idea at all).
God's retarded neediness.
God's value system - favoring mindlessness, anti-reason, anti-science, anti-independence, pretty much everything I find weak and contemptible in mankind is encouraged in god's value system.
The primacy of emotionalism over reason promoted by christianity and the bible.
God's process of choosing the elected - through mysteries and fables and retarded shit.
The doctrines of sin formulated through the years and how antiquated they are (anti-gay, anti-pre-marital sex, anti-selfish behavior). These ideas formulated from asceticism are anti-materialism and self-denial and self-depreciation. Its a slave moral ethic, and pathetic.
The concepts of judgment of others and judgment of self relating to peace of mind and finding enlightenment.
God's ignorance in the bible of how everything works.
How god is portrayed in Job as being a silly little school-boy who wants to impress a cool friend (the devil).
The inherent conflict of the Bronze Age God of the OT and the "love peace dope" god of the NT considering Hebrews 13:8.

Shit I got a million reasons. You can't get past genocide.

Also, the concept that all suffering must be bad for the atheist complaint to be valid against an omnisicient god who could have created a world without excessive suffering, is just silly. That you asked me to concede a point you are getting hammered on made me chuckle. Some suffering could be useful, how about we grant that point?

Now you address how my uncle's ALS is useful to him, or makes any sense after 45 years of being a faithful pastor. If you can't, and you can't, then you should rightly concede 1) god could have created a better world but chose not to, and 2) things don't work out the way the bible says they do - at least in this life.

At least somehow YOU can say that choking on your own vomit as a way of dying after watching yourself decay into a lump after 3 years is ok because he ends up in heaven, but I don't believe in that heaven, and your cop-out seems as hollow as the callousness you have to develop to say that its ok for god to kill women and children in cold blood. Why is he so fucking afraid of dying? He should be totally stoked, but no one in my family is. You know why? Because deep down we all know their beliefs are a bunch of fairy dust and pixies.

But the thing you don't realize, that maybe you should, is why is that callousness required so that you can maintain your belief in your god? Why? Because you are past lying to yourself that genocide didn't really happen at god's command, so the next logical conclusion is that it must be ok. The next logical conclusion after that, is that the bible can't be the word of god, because the god of the bible is said to have done things that you know aren't really ok - you know it. You know it in the way you get angry when you read about Stalin, or Hitler, or any of that stuff I don't read.

But you create this place in your mind where your god gets a pass, and no one else does. Yet you CAN be critical of other Gods right? - Krisha, Allah, Zeus, Thor, etc. My god did things that don't make any sense but mine is real, where those gods who do things that don't make any sense aren't real. Right? How do we make this distinction? They all read like fairy tales to me - you are an atheist about 99% of the gods that have ever existed, I'm just an atheist about one more. It just so happens to be yours.

To me the real question is, how bad do you need that faith, do you need it more than the truth? If the truth lead you away from your faith, would you let it? No, then why are we even talking? Because I assure you, if the truth lead me to Christ, I would be there. It just didn't, and won't. I have travelled both paths - one is steeped in reality, the other is steeped in my imagination. One day from these experiences, deep in the faith, I decided to follow the truth wherever it led, and voila!

SORRY FOR THE LONG REPLY.

Don't sell yourself short Judge, you're an incredible slouch.

Martin Luther was the "father" of two movements - The Reformation and Nazism.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Skippy538's post
01-09-2013, 08:44 AM
RE: Genocide in the Bible
Complaint number 1, above - The doctrine of original sin:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SGkgmU9vG_o

Maybe the doctrine of original sin isn't required for a systematic theology? Maybe Augustine was wrong. New thread?

Don't sell yourself short Judge, you're an incredible slouch.

Martin Luther was the "father" of two movements - The Reformation and Nazism.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-09-2013, 05:50 PM (This post was last modified: 01-09-2013 06:26 PM by ShirubaDangan.)
RE: Genocide in the Bible
(30-08-2013 11:48 AM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  
Quote: Congratulations on winning the "justifying a genocide award!" I believe all of mankind will look upon you favorably throughout history.

I see. So you are saying genocide is bad, then. Actually, it ALMOST sounds like you, an atheist, think genocide is EVIL (shudder). What is the absolute standard or morality you refer to that allows you to make this subjective choice?

Quote: Context, context, context... What bothers me is this is such a ridiculously poor defense by believers. God creates a book which is supposed to be taken literally by mankind but of course fills it with flaws, fantasies, contradictions and crimes against humanity. Of course he also says he loves us when he continues to systematically murder us and you try to say they are more degenerate than they are now? How possibly? What could they have done to deserve eradication of not only the adults but the children and toddlers to the infants and newborns who somehow had to be killed in such a savage way by a deity? Humans can't possibly do whatever they wanted and if you truly believe the flood happened you are very delusional because of the lack of water on this planet(Including the poles and ice that cover the planet) and nearly no chance of surviving unless you use the excuse of magic.

I see. So if you believe children are innocent, you must also believe adults are not innocent. So then some suffering is deserved?

PS. You do know that when scientists first moved away from adhering to a biblical flood, they chose to say the Earth was mostly covered by ice… which is made from… wait for it… keep waiting… wait for it…

Quote: Now I want to address this point. You say people die of natural causes and that is true but God brought this upon the people. He apparently did this with his power to kill all this life and not just human life but plants and animals included!

I am glad you conceded already though and hope you continue to look into the facts. If your God doesn't control nature like you are implying then he isn't all powerful.

Right. God made natural causes, and he made death, and life. Right. So forget genocide, and say, “Man. God kills EVERYONE!” and then we’re on my playing field, where I remind you about the odds of death, being as they are… wait for it… 1:1.

Quote: Also, I read a later post and you said babies are innocent and your deity still apparently killed them? Do you not see the problem here? God is just so because he is just he kills babies.

The ultimate of evil.

Yes, babies are innocent regarding salvation and go to Heaven, yes. Yes, god kills babies, cute and cuddly little babies, even fetuses in the womb.

Yes.

And so you’re pissed because not only does god take the lives of babies but commanded people to kill babies? Really? But I thought if god exists you blame all evil on him anyway? BE CONSISTENT.

Let’s be specific. You punched someone in the face once and they punched you back. Did you punch them or did god punch them?

THINK!

No, I am simply using your basis in determining why people would have died in a mass genocide involving adults, children and infants. If what you want to believe is correct then that means all adults would be corrupt but what they did is something you have yet to reply too. As I said, If all adults are corrupt then how do you explain children or infants in the flood? How can a person who is naive be deserving of death? I am using the best of what you claim but it still doesn't hold up.





Now your second response is actually quite sad and shows very little knowledge about water and the history of the planet. It is a very poor answer for believing that the world could be entirely covered by water. Yes, the planet was vastly covered by ice but was the entire planet covered? No. This is what you claim lets look if that holds up to anything which it in fact doesn't.

[Image: 2226_ban.jpg]

[Image: Laurentide-Ice-Sheet1.jpg]

[Image: europeiceage.gif]

[Image: Last_glacial_vegetation_map.png]

Looks like ice didn't cover the whole planet. Well thats one hole in your claim but lets see what would need to happen to have the whole planet filled with water.

[Image: local-flood.jpg]

This would be about the norm throughout the entire planet even covering the highest peak at 29,029 feet. That would be an insane amount of water we do not have in our oceans or within the poles or air. It isn't capable. Also, it would drastically change the water pressure, salinity of the water, flows of the oceans, changes in temperature, etc. How could animals even survive? But of course if you use the excuse in the video below you can believe whatever you want I suppose.





Magic!

You don't also realize that ice expands and water would be even less than the entirety of the snow that covers the planet. Yet another one and this doesn't even explain numerous other holes like the caring of animals, diversity of species, how the animals even migrated to the area, the world with a strong lack of vegetation for the animals to live on afterwards, surviving the freezing cold of the altitude they were at, potential to lose species on the voyage quite easily due to disease or natural death on the voyage and the fact a very old man that lived an impossibly long age created an ark to hold differing animals from differing habitats could possibly exist.

Now let me give you this one for thought. Let us say a giant dam exists with a village at the bottom of where it drains. They live how they live and I watch them from above. One day I decide they are evil and decide to destroy the damn and it eradicates everything even the children, infants and naive who did nothing. Now you might say well that was caused by a person! Well are you not going to say the flood was not created by God to kill all those people specifically? He apparently made it possible just to kill people. That is not natural that would be supernatural influence which would still be murder because he did it with the intent to kill. It was no natural cause if he created such a supernatural event.

Now you are also mistaken about the odds of death being 1:1. Some places have much higher death rates than others and while some may be natural others definitely are not. Car accidents, murders, and dying of some deity wanting to flood you to eradicate you are definitely not natural. We usually say they died prematurely because they did not die of any natural causes but by man made or deity made ones I suppose in this comparison.

Now you can completely ignore the numerous times God has ordered the killing, and brutality against human beings but that doesn't help your cause. Let us look if God has ordered anything horrid like death or torture and see if its 'natural'.





God is apparently so great to have slavery and murder within his Bible and have it frowned upon in later civilizations like ours. Looks like he needs to update his Facebook page but you should obviously see this is by far not natural.

Now I love this last point. God creates a child just apparently to brutally murder that same infant in a horrible way. Think about this PleaseJesus. Honestly think about this. Is that worth it just to bring it to life to remove it disgustingly from the world? God definitely likes killing babies then just for the purpose of bringing them to life to end it and I see the excuse of: 'Well he brings them to heaven!' because even you know the ugliness of that deed that you must try to justify it.

No, I am displeased that you believe in a deity who openly kills babies and I will place randomly capitalized letters somewhere to prove a point that doesn't really exist. Be consistent? Let us look back at the deity and see if this isn't his fault but only our fault since he created us and knew from the beginning that we would not be what he wished we were because he knew(all knowing) and decided to punish us and for thousands of years have humans live a short lifespan and proceed to die in horror and fear until they created numerous gods to supposedly give them knowledge of this world they feared. He then decides to continue to sacrifice himself to himself(which is not a sacrifice in within itself) and reiterate that it is all humans fault for God designing humans in that apparent way.

Yes, you are correct it is all our fault since God knew all this from the start and had fun with it but I will tell you the truth. I don't believe in God and don't blame any evils on him. He does not exist and our woes and problems are our own. No fairy tale creature watches over us as we continue to fall and stumble on this small remote piece of dust and continue to live and try to strive. We will likely develop even more religions after this one falters as we continue to make more branches of this current religion.

The last thing I have to say is THINK! more! It is all I ask but even in the end it seems God cares even little for his own rules. A commandment demanding to not kill is constantly broken within the Bible and especially by the apparent creator himself.

The one that I do not believe the same as you do not believe the Mormon's one. I just went one step further like others have done.

"Mankind must put an end to war, or war will put an end to mankind." -John F Kennedy

The way to see by Faith is to shut the eye of Reason.” -Benjamin Franklin

It has been a long time. How have you been?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes ShirubaDangan's post
02-09-2013, 02:47 AM
RE: Genocide in the Bible
Since people are bringing up the supposed Great Flood, here is an excellent video that explores the math of the flood.

Earth (V1)
R = 6371km
V1 = (4/3)πr³
V1 = 1,083,206,916,845.75km³

Flooded Earth (V2)
R = 6371km + 8.85km (Mt Everest)
V2 = (4/3)πr³
V2 = 1,087,727,260,852.17km³

V2 - V1 = 4,520,344,006.42km³

This is the amount of water required to raise the ocean levels high enough to cover the top of Mt. Everest. That is 4.5 billion cubic kilometers of water.

Experts currently estimate all of the water on Earth, both above and below ground, totals to about 1,360,000,000km³.

So the amount of water required to flood the Earth is 4.32 times the total amount of water currently on the planet. Also remember that this all accumulated over the course of 40 days.

The hardest recorded rainfall in history was in Resume, on March 15, 1952. It rained 73.6 inches in one day.

What would be the average rainfall required to raise global sea levels by 8.85km to fulfill the flood myth?

8,710.63 inches per day, for 40 days and nights straight.






There is no simple naturalistic explanation. So the story is either false as described, or someone defending it has to rely on magical answers. Which is fine, as soon as they can substantiate the existence of magic beyond a reasonable doubt.

[Image: GrumpyCat_01.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: