Total Posts:44|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

The Bible on Rape, Slavery, and Genocide

LogicalLunatic
Posts: 1,633
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2014 4:19:35 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
1. Rape
First of all, this link here gets into some of the specifics of the wording of the original Biblical text.
http://blackandgoldjack.hubpages.com...
Now, I am going to ask you a question. How the *expletive* is it condoning rape whenever the verse which talks about rape says that he must pay her father a ton of money and marry her for having "violated" her? Yup, God's really praising the dude for raping her (that was sarcasm).
Of course, even though the man is still forced to take responsibility for her, she still marries a rapist, right? Well, maybe so, but what's the alternative? Nobody was going to want to marry someone who wasn't a virgin. Thus, if the rapist was merely stoned, the woman would never have a husband of any kind and she would never have any kids. Now, kids were a pretty big deal to women of the day. Rachel, Jacob's wife, actually said "Give me children or I'll die!"
Basically, it was the lesser of two bad things, marrying an abusive rapist vs. never having any family and no one to look after you when you're old and feeble. By those day's standards, it was better to just put up with the abusive husband, and there was still the possibility that he might become nice with time.
But this still does not condone rape.

Also, let's look at a certain conversation that Jesus had with some people. He explained to them that divorce was allowed in the OT because of the "hardness of your hearts." But it was not part of God's plan for couples to divorce. In this same way, some of the decrees towards things like rape and slavery were because of the "hardness of their hearts."
God didn't particularly like Polygamy either, but here's a source which explains why it was allowed.
http://www.gotquestions.org...

In the New Testament, husbands are instructed to love their wives and not be hard on them.
http://biblehub.com...
http://biblehub.com...

So clearly, even if God allowed humans to engage in domestic violence, that was a LONG way off from the way He intended humanity to act like.

2. Slavery

Does the Bible condone slavery? Well, once again the principle of the "hardness of your heart" applies. Virtually every culture in the world took slaves at the time, and the Israelites may have brought slaves with them when they left Egypt, as there were cultures (such as Ancient Rome) where even slaves often had slaves.
Much of the "slavery" was servitude, often to pay back a debt (see the Parable of the Unforgiving Servant).
But, there was also legitimate slavery, as was the case with many of the peoples who Israel had taken captive (the Moabites, Ammonites, etc). Well, in a way this may have been a blessing for the slaves. For instance, if their city was defeated and largely destroyed, they may have been left homeless and without any provider, especially if the said person was a woman or a child. Also, as slaves of the Israelites, they would be converted to Judaism, possibly saving their souls.
Oh, and here's something that most Anti-Theists forget to mention: the Year of Jubilee. Around every 50 years, all slaves would be freed. Boom. Just like that. So if you were taken captive by the Israelites, you would most definitely be freed when the Year of Jubilee came, if you were still alive by this point. If not, at least your grandchildren would be freed.
As other cultures had no equivalent of the year of Jubilee (as far as I know), the Israelites were more civilized than many of the other peoples of the world in this respect.

As it ties in with the rape accusation, what about female captives from wars? Well, that wasn't rape, as the Israelites had to marry them before they could have sexual relations with them. It was forced marriage, but not rape. Then again, sometimes this would be beneficial to the woman.

3. Genocide
Okay, so why did God order the Israelites to kill the Canaanites? Well, most likely because the Canaanites were utterly depraved. They committed the sin of Infanticide often, and they probably committed a large range of sexual sins from fornication to homosexuality to bestiality to raping children. If they were allowed to live, they would've corrupted the Israelites and caused them to also sacrifice babies, molest children, and get themselves drunk all the time.
What about the children, you may ask? Well, the children are likely in Heaven now. And the animals, well, they were just animals.

Also, the Canaanites would've been antagonistic towards Israel, so if the Israelites didn't kill the Canaanites, the Canaanites would've killed the Israelites. Simply put, there wasn't room for both peoples in Israel, if you get what I mean.

But then, there is something else that most people overlook.
Look at this verse:
http://biblehub.com...
In it, God said that He would "drive out" the Canaanites. Excuse me if the basic meanings of English words suddenly change to mean something completely different, but "drive out" and "kill" are not synonyms.
In other words...
Perhaps not all of the Canaanites were killed. Perhaps they were simply driven out of the land.

Thank you for reading.
A True Work of Art: http://www.debate.org...

Atheist Logic: http://www.debate.org...

Bulproof formally admits to being a troll (Post 16):
http://www.debate.org...
bulproof
Posts: 25,210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2014 12:01:26 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
The Bible on Rape, Slavery, and Genocide

It's all good clean fun.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2014 1:47:01 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
So it's okay to rape a woman if she has a "hardened heart"?

(Isaiah 13:15-16) "Every one that is found shall be thrust through; and every one that is joined unto them shall fall by the sword. Their children also shall be dashed to pieces before their eyes; their houses shall be spoiled, and their wives ravished."

Here we see the claim that God will gather his armies against people who are "evil", and this is what his armies will do.

"So Louie... yeah, God here. I'm gonna git my armies togedda, sennum into your cities, an' have 'em thrust ya'll trew n'chit, dash yer kids ta pieces while we make ya watch, and hav'em rape yer wives. Now ya gotta unnastand dat I dun wanna do dis ta ya, but yer evil, ya know and so ya brung it on yersef. Its jest bidnuss. It's nuttin persnal."
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
neutral
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2014 2:43:47 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/14/2014 1:47:01 AM, Beastt wrote:
So it's okay to rape a woman if she has a "hardened heart"?

(Isaiah 13:15-16) "Every one that is found shall be thrust through; and every one that is joined unto them shall fall by the sword. Their children also shall be dashed to pieces before their eyes; their houses shall be spoiled, and their wives ravished."

Here we see the claim that God will gather his armies against people who are "evil", and this is what his armies will do.

"So Louie... yeah, God here. I'm gonna git my armies togedda, sennum into your cities, an' have 'em thrust ya'll trew n'chit, dash yer kids ta pieces while we make ya watch, and hav'em rape yer wives. Now ya gotta unnastand dat I dun wanna do dis ta ya, but yer evil, ya know and so ya brung it on yersef. Its jest bidnuss. It's nuttin persnal."

Yeah, that is usually how every existential war starts and is fought - and when your enemy has issued that same command? Starts the war? Then loses? Huh - clearly its the victor who is horrible. We should NOT win wars that others start because atheists thousands of years hence will call us meanies?

OK.
LogicalLunatic
Posts: 1,633
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2014 2:08:06 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/14/2014 1:31:29 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
Threads like these make Christianity look bad.

Oh? Please explain.
A True Work of Art: http://www.debate.org...

Atheist Logic: http://www.debate.org...

Bulproof formally admits to being a troll (Post 16):
http://www.debate.org...
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2014 2:46:10 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/14/2014 2:43:47 AM, neutral wrote:
At 9/14/2014 1:47:01 AM, Beastt wrote:
So it's okay to rape a woman if she has a "hardened heart"?

(Isaiah 13:15-16) "Every one that is found shall be thrust through; and every one that is joined unto them shall fall by the sword. Their children also shall be dashed to pieces before their eyes; their houses shall be spoiled, and their wives ravished."

Here we see the claim that God will gather his armies against people who are "evil", and this is what his armies will do.

"So Louie... yeah, God here. I'm gonna git my armies togedda, sennum into your cities, an' have 'em thrust ya'll trew n'chit, dash yer kids ta pieces while we make ya watch, and hav'em rape yer wives. Now ya gotta unnastand dat I dun wanna do dis ta ya, but yer evil, ya know and so ya brung it on yersef. Its jest bidnuss. It's nuttin persnal."

Yeah, that is usually how every existential war starts and is fought - and when your enemy has issued that same command? Starts the war? Then loses? Huh - clearly its the victor who is horrible. We should NOT win wars that others start because atheists thousands of years hence will call us meanies?

OK.

You seem to have a great deal of trouble focusing on the point of the discussion. This shows God's willingness to gather armies and send them in to slaughter children and infants, even dashing children to pieces while their parents are forced to watch, and to rape the women. Get it?

It shows God commanding armies to rape women as a form of punishment, because the women have "hardened hearts". Raping women isn't a good strategy for winning war, Neutral. It's just barbaric. Perhaps when you were in Iraq, you felt like you were one of "God's soldiers", raping the women, thrusting people through, and dashing children to pieces. But that only demonstrates the problem with people believing the Bible to be a standard for morality.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
LogicalLunatic
Posts: 1,633
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2014 4:45:17 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/14/2014 2:46:10 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 9/14/2014 2:43:47 AM, neutral wrote:
At 9/14/2014 1:47:01 AM, Beastt wrote:
So it's okay to rape a woman if she has a "hardened heart"?

(Isaiah 13:15-16) "Every one that is found shall be thrust through; and every one that is joined unto them shall fall by the sword. Their children also shall be dashed to pieces before their eyes; their houses shall be spoiled, and their wives ravished."

Here we see the claim that God will gather his armies against people who are "evil", and this is what his armies will do.

"So Louie... yeah, God here. I'm gonna git my armies togedda, sennum into your cities, an' have 'em thrust ya'll trew n'chit, dash yer kids ta pieces while we make ya watch, and hav'em rape yer wives. Now ya gotta unnastand dat I dun wanna do dis ta ya, but yer evil, ya know and so ya brung it on yersef. Its jest bidnuss. It's nuttin persnal."

Yeah, that is usually how every existential war starts and is fought - and when your enemy has issued that same command? Starts the war? Then loses? Huh - clearly its the victor who is horrible. We should NOT win wars that others start because atheists thousands of years hence will call us meanies?

OK.

You seem to have a great deal of trouble focusing on the point of the discussion. This shows God's willingness to gather armies and send them in to slaughter children and infants, even dashing children to pieces while their parents are forced to watch, and to rape the women. Get it?

It shows God commanding armies to rape women as a form of punishment, because the women have "hardened hearts". Raping women isn't a good strategy for winning war, Neutral. It's just barbaric. Perhaps when you were in Iraq, you felt like you were one of "God's soldiers", raping the women, thrusting people through, and dashing children to pieces. But that only demonstrates the problem with people believing the Bible to be a standard for morality.

The Bible doesn't condone war rape, or rape in general. At worst, they are allowed to take the women as their wives.
A True Work of Art: http://www.debate.org...

Atheist Logic: http://www.debate.org...

Bulproof formally admits to being a troll (Post 16):
http://www.debate.org...
neutral
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2014 4:52:54 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/14/2014 2:46:10 PM, Beastt wrote:


You seem to have a great deal of trouble focusing on the point of the discussion.

You mean your continuous flame bait and emotionalism? Pretending that we are about murder people left and right - oh yeah we got that - its just BS, as usual.

This shows God's willingness to gather armies and send them in to slaughter children and infants, even dashing children to pieces while their parents are forced to watch, and to rape the women. Get it?

It shows God commanding armies to rape women as a form of punishment, because the women have "hardened hearts". Raping women isn't a good strategy for winning war, Neutral. It's just barbaric. Perhaps when you were in Iraq, you felt like you were one of "God's soldiers", raping the women, thrusting people through, and dashing children to pieces. But that only demonstrates the problem with people believing the Bible to be a standard for morality.

It shows people doing things that are necessary. But we keep pointing it out and inviting you to have an adult discussion, and you keep screaming RAPE, MURDER, GENOCIDE like a four year old.

BY all means, you keep bigotedly claiming that we rape women while we are not. If hatred helps you sleep - more power to you.

Satanists.
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2014 5:06:19 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/14/2014 4:52:54 PM, neutral wrote:
At 9/14/2014 2:46:10 PM, Beastt wrote:


You seem to have a great deal of trouble focusing on the point of the discussion.

You mean your continuous flame bait and emotionalism? Pretending that we are about murder people left and right - oh yeah we got that - its just BS, as usual.
You're the only one getting emotional. No one did any flame-baiting, Neutral. You simply can't handle anyone believing differently than you. You are so adamantly intolerant of anyone actually thinking - rather than falling at the toes of self-proclaimed authority - that you become instantly and emotionally incensed, simply for the fact that others have seen that you are wrong.


This shows God's willingness to gather armies and send them in to slaughter children and infants, even dashing children to pieces while their parents are forced to watch, and to rape the women. Get it?

It shows God commanding armies to rape women as a form of punishment, because the women have "hardened hearts". Raping women isn't a good strategy for winning war, Neutral. It's just barbaric. Perhaps when you were in Iraq, you felt like you were one of "God's soldiers", raping the women, thrusting people through, and dashing children to pieces. But that only demonstrates the problem with people believing the Bible to be a standard for morality.

It shows people doing things that are necessary. But we keep pointing it out and inviting you to have an adult discussion, and you keep screaming RAPE, MURDER, GENOCIDE like a four year old.

BY all means, you keep bigotedly claiming that we rape women while we are not. If hatred helps you sleep - more power to you.

Satanists.
So here we see you proclaiming that...
- wholesale slaughter
- forcing people to watch as their children are dashed to pieces
- rape of women
- absolute genocide

... are all, (in YOUR words), "things that are necessary". Because this is what you gain from the teachings of "love thy neighbor" and "turn the other cheek". And this demonstrates the propriety of asking the question, whether or not Christians should be free to move about through society, unmonitored. Christianity has become (assuming it ever wasn't) a sick and twisted sociological threat against humanity. What else could possibly emerge from the teaching that all humans are wicked, evil, disgusting and worthy of a complete eternity of horrendous torture?

You have been assimilated by the programming, and are now destined to seek a course to destroy humanity.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2014 6:04:17 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/14/2014 2:08:06 PM, LogicalLunatic wrote:
At 9/14/2014 1:31:29 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
Threads like these make Christianity look bad.

Oh? Please explain.

Your explanations are SO, SO, remarkably, terri-horri-bad. I don't fault atheists when they just give you an incredulous stare.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2014 6:08:44 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
It's like moral sense goes out the window when it comes to some Christians "defending" the bible. Those same Christians in any other context would unequivocally be condemning the very same rationalizations if they came in defense of anything else except the bible.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
LogicalLunatic
Posts: 1,633
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2014 6:17:25 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/14/2014 6:08:44 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
It's like moral sense goes out the window when it comes to some Christians "defending" the bible. Those same Christians in any other context would unequivocally be condemning the very same rationalizations if they came in defense of anything else except the bible.

So what would you suggest? That we simply don't defend the Bible?
And yes, I would condemn genocide in all cases except for those that God ordered in the Bible. And no, I do not consider myself a hypocrite for this.
A True Work of Art: http://www.debate.org...

Atheist Logic: http://www.debate.org...

Bulproof formally admits to being a troll (Post 16):
http://www.debate.org...
LogicalLunatic
Posts: 1,633
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2014 6:18:03 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/14/2014 6:04:17 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 9/14/2014 2:08:06 PM, LogicalLunatic wrote:
At 9/14/2014 1:31:29 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
Threads like these make Christianity look bad.

Oh? Please explain.

Your explanations are SO, SO, remarkably, terri-horri-bad. I don't fault atheists when they just give you an incredulous stare.

In what way?
A True Work of Art: http://www.debate.org...

Atheist Logic: http://www.debate.org...

Bulproof formally admits to being a troll (Post 16):
http://www.debate.org...
LogicalLunatic
Posts: 1,633
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2014 6:19:01 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/14/2014 5:06:32 PM, Christian27 wrote:
does the Bible have any thoughts on torture?

Probably, but I can't think of any particular cases.
A True Work of Art: http://www.debate.org...

Atheist Logic: http://www.debate.org...

Bulproof formally admits to being a troll (Post 16):
http://www.debate.org...
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2014 6:21:29 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/14/2014 6:19:01 PM, LogicalLunatic wrote:
At 9/14/2014 5:06:32 PM, Christian27 wrote:
does the Bible have any thoughts on torture?

Probably, but I can't think of any particular cases.

The Catholic church does. They legalized it.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2014 6:22:41 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/14/2014 6:17:25 PM, LogicalLunatic wrote:
At 9/14/2014 6:08:44 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
It's like moral sense goes out the window when it comes to some Christians "defending" the bible. Those same Christians in any other context would unequivocally be condemning the very same rationalizations if they came in defense of anything else except the bible.

So what would you suggest? That we simply don't defend the Bible?
Recognize that it is indefensible.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
LogicalLunatic
Posts: 1,633
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2014 6:22:43 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/14/2014 6:21:29 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 9/14/2014 6:19:01 PM, LogicalLunatic wrote:
At 9/14/2014 5:06:32 PM, Christian27 wrote:
does the Bible have any thoughts on torture?

Probably, but I can't think of any particular cases.

The Catholic church does. They legalized it.

Are you seriously going to bring up stuff some idiots did several centuries ago?
A True Work of Art: http://www.debate.org...

Atheist Logic: http://www.debate.org...

Bulproof formally admits to being a troll (Post 16):
http://www.debate.org...
LogicalLunatic
Posts: 1,633
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2014 6:23:38 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/14/2014 6:22:41 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 9/14/2014 6:17:25 PM, LogicalLunatic wrote:
At 9/14/2014 6:08:44 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
It's like moral sense goes out the window when it comes to some Christians "defending" the bible. Those same Christians in any other context would unequivocally be condemning the very same rationalizations if they came in defense of anything else except the bible.

So what would you suggest? That we simply don't defend the Bible?
Recognize that it is indefensible.

The OP suggests otherwise.
A True Work of Art: http://www.debate.org...

Atheist Logic: http://www.debate.org...

Bulproof formally admits to being a troll (Post 16):
http://www.debate.org...
Christian27
Posts: 12
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2014 6:31:44 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/14/2014 6:21:29 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 9/14/2014 6:19:01 PM, LogicalLunatic wrote:
At 9/14/2014 5:06:32 PM, Christian27 wrote:
does the Bible have any thoughts on torture?

Probably, but I can't think of any particular cases.

The Catholic church does. They legalized it.

So they did: http://www.vaginalpear.com...
Warning: extreme NSFW
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2014 9:26:09 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/14/2014 6:17:25 PM, LogicalLunatic wrote:
At 9/14/2014 6:08:44 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
It's like moral sense goes out the window when it comes to some Christians "defending" the bible. Those same Christians in any other context would unequivocally be condemning the very same rationalizations if they came in defense of anything else except the bible.

So what would you suggest? That we simply don't defend the Bible?

Don't "defend" it in a way that is dishonest, morally contemptible, and makes Christanity look bad? I.e. stop making excuses for slavery, rape, and genocide.

And yes, I would condemn genocide in all cases except for those that God ordered in the Bible. And no, I do not consider myself a hypocrite for this.

Well, you are one. Tell me, would you accept this claim if this was in any other sacred literature? That God - a perfectly moral being - ordered genocide?
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2014 9:55:23 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/13/2014 4:19:35 PM, LogicalLunatic wrote:

I won't address the others just because I can only deal with so much in one post and I'll keep this brief. I can't possibly point out everything so, so wrong with just the following, much less the preceding paragraphs. smh Let's start.

3. Genocide
Okay, so why did God order the Israelites to kill the Canaanites? Well, most likely because the Canaanites were utterly depraved.

1. Do you realize that that justification follows the pattern of rationalization that EVERY group tells themselves in order to justify horrendous acts upon another person/people group? Do you realize that is exactly how the Hutu's spoke of the Tusti's? Presumably you think the genocide of the Tustsi was a great evil (if you don't, we simply have nothing to talk about anymore). Now - tell me - WHAT IS DIFFERENT IN THIS CASE? What is different in the case of the Europeans (under alleged divine sanction) committing genocide on the native population and the Israelites committing genocide on the Canaanites? You don't accept that the Europeans actually had divine sanction (and, again, if you do, we simply have nothing more to talk about) - so why do you accept that the Israelites did?

2. The Israelites were NO BETTER than the Canaanites in terms of depravity. (Records of this are recorded all throughout the bible.)

3. It's remarkably convenient how the Canaanites JUST OUTSIDE the Israelites' promised land were fit to married and procreated with, but the ones INSIDE the promised land had to be exterminated. Almost sounds as if they were creating a rationalization to justify a murderous land grab...eh?

4. If they were "utterly depraved" why did God not send a prophet to preach to them to turn from their wicked ways (instead of, y'know, killing them all)? He did so with Jonah and Nineveh, which was undoubtedly more wicked.

5. EVEN IF the parents deserved death, why exactly did the children deserve death? They were innocent.

They committed the sin of Infanticide often,

This is breathtaking. Okay, so for the sin of infanticide God orders the Israelites to kill all the children. Think about that. Seriously. Do you know not see how bad your logic is right here?

and they probably committed a large range of sexual sins from fornication to homosexuality to bestiality to raping children.

All bad (except homosexual orientation isn't a sin), and only the last one is even arguable for the death penalty. The israelites also commited these sins.

If they were allowed to live, they would've corrupted the Israelites and caused them to also sacrifice babies, molest children, and get themselves drunk all the time.

Lol, well except for the fact that the Israelites regularly did that anyway. Seems like Gods plan didn't work. So on top of ordering genocide it would seem you think God is inefficient and bad at future plan because even AFTER this alleged genocide that didn't stop the Israelites from doing these corrupt things.

You are basically admitting that in free and open competition on the marketplace of ideas with other relgions Yahweh would have lost to the allure of all other Gods (wouldn't seem so powerful or smart, huh?) so he had to order that all competition exterminated.

And again, this is the same rhetoric that many have used to justify genocide in the past. It's astonishing you don't see this.

What about the children, you may ask? Well, the children are likely in Heaven now. And the animals, well, they were just animals.


Congratulations. Are you in favor of abortion? If not, you should be. Because you just justified abortion. All those fetus' and children killed in the womb? Well...they're probably in heaven now. Are you a fan of Andrea Yates by any chance? She drowned all five of her children on the supposition that they would go to heaven because she didn't want them to go to hell. Same logic right?

And, no, animals are not "just animals". They are made in God's image too.

Also, the Canaanites would've been antagonistic towards Israel, so if the Israelites didn't kill the Canaanites, the Canaanites would've killed the Israelites. Simply put, there wasn't room for both peoples in Israel, if you get what I mean.


Right. The a God of love and peace who advocated turning the other cheek and responding to opressors in a peaceful way could think of no other way to respond to attackers except to try to exterminate their entire tribe.

But then, there is something else that most people overlook.
Look at this verse:
http://biblehub.com...
In it, God said that He would "drive out" the Canaanites. Excuse me if the basic meanings of English words suddenly change to mean something completely different, but "drive out" and "kill" are not synonyms.
In other words...
Perhaps not all of the Canaanites were killed. Perhaps they were simply driven out of the land.


No one overlooks it but it just seems like you don't know what the actual definition of genocide entails. Genocide doesn't simply mean that each and every member of the a people group is killed.

"Generally speaking, genocide does not necessarily mean the immediate destruction of a nation, except when accomplished by mass killings of all members of a nation. It is intended rather to signify a coordinated plan of different actions aiming at the destruction of essential foundations of the life of national groups, with the aim of annihilating the groups themselves. The objectives of such a plan would be the disintegration of the political and social institutions, of culture, language, national feelings, religion, and the economic existence of national groups, and the destruction of the personal security, liberty, health, dignity, and even the lives of the individuals belonging to such groups."

Driving out a people group from their land - while also killing tons of them - constitutes genocide as it also succeeds in disintergration of their political and social institutions. (Since land was more heavily tied to cultural identity back then.)

Thank you for reading.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
LogicalLunatic
Posts: 1,633
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2014 10:15:22 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/14/2014 9:55:23 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 9/13/2014 4:19:35 PM, LogicalLunatic wrote:


I won't address the others just because I can only deal with so much in one post and I'll keep this brief. I can't possibly point out everything so, so wrong with just the following, much less the preceding paragraphs. smh Let's start.

3. Genocide
Okay, so why did God order the Israelites to kill the Canaanites? Well, most likely because the Canaanites were utterly depraved.

1. Do you realize that that justification follows the pattern of rationalization that EVERY group tells themselves in order to justify horrendous acts upon another person/people group? Do you realize that is exactly how the Hutu's spoke of the Tusti's? Presumably you think the genocide of the Tustsi was a great evil (if you don't, we simply have nothing to talk about anymore). Now - tell me - WHAT IS DIFFERENT IN THIS CASE? What is different in the case of the Europeans (under alleged divine sanction) committing genocide on the native population and the Israelites committing genocide on the Canaanites? You don't accept that the Europeans actually had divine sanction (and, again, if you do, we simply have nothing more to talk about) - so why do you accept that the Israelites did?

2. The Israelites were NO BETTER than the Canaanites in terms of depravity. (Records of this are recorded all throughout the bible.)

3. It's remarkably convenient how the Canaanites JUST OUTSIDE the Israelites' promised land were fit to married and procreated with, but the ones INSIDE the promised land had to be exterminated. Almost sounds as if they were creating a rationalization to justify a murderous land grab...eh?

4. If they were "utterly depraved" why did God not send a prophet to preach to them to turn from their wicked ways (instead of, y'know, killing them all)? He did so with Jonah and Nineveh, which was undoubtedly more wicked.

5. EVEN IF the parents deserved death, why exactly did the children deserve death? They were innocent.

They committed the sin of Infanticide often,

This is breathtaking. Okay, so for the sin of infanticide God orders the Israelites to kill all the children. Think about that. Seriously. Do you know not see how bad your logic is right here?

and they probably committed a large range of sexual sins from fornication to homosexuality to bestiality to raping children.

All bad (except homosexual orientation isn't a sin), and only the last one is even arguable for the death penalty. The israelites also commited these sins.

If they were allowed to live, they would've corrupted the Israelites and caused them to also sacrifice babies, molest children, and get themselves drunk all the time.

Lol, well except for the fact that the Israelites regularly did that anyway. Seems like Gods plan didn't work. So on top of ordering genocide it would seem you think God is inefficient and bad at future plan because even AFTER this alleged genocide that didn't stop the Israelites from doing these corrupt things.

You are basically admitting that in free and open competition on the marketplace of ideas with other relgions Yahweh would have lost to the allure of all other Gods (wouldn't seem so powerful or smart, huh?) so he had to order that all competition exterminated.

And again, this is the same rhetoric that many have used to justify genocide in the past. It's astonishing you don't see this.

What about the children, you may ask? Well, the children are likely in Heaven now. And the animals, well, they were just animals.


Congratulations. Are you in favor of abortion? If not, you should be. Because you just justified abortion. All those fetus' and children killed in the womb? Well...they're probably in heaven now. Are you a fan of Andrea Yates by any chance? She drowned all five of her children on the supposition that they would go to heaven because she didn't want them to go to hell. Same logic right?

And, no, animals are not "just animals". They are made in God's image too.

Also, the Canaanites would've been antagonistic towards Israel, so if the Israelites didn't kill the Canaanites, the Canaanites would've killed the Israelites. Simply put, there wasn't room for both peoples in Israel, if you get what I mean.


Right. The a God of love and peace who advocated turning the other cheek and responding to opressors in a peaceful way could think of no other way to respond to attackers except to try to exterminate their entire tribe.

But then, there is something else that most people overlook.
Look at this verse:
http://biblehub.com...
In it, God said that He would "drive out" the Canaanites. Excuse me if the basic meanings of English words suddenly change to mean something completely different, but "drive out" and "kill" are not synonyms.
In other words...
Perhaps not all of the Canaanites were killed. Perhaps they were simply driven out of the land.


No one overlooks it but it just seems like you don't know what the actual definition of genocide entails. Genocide doesn't simply mean that each and every member of the a people group is killed.

"Generally speaking, genocide does not necessarily mean the immediate destruction of a nation, except when accomplished by mass killings of all members of a nation. It is intended rather to signify a coordinated plan of different actions aiming at the destruction of essential foundations of the life of national groups, with the aim of annihilating the groups themselves. The objectives of such a plan would be the disintegration of the political and social institutions, of culture, language, national feelings, religion, and the economic existence of national groups, and the destruction of the personal security, liberty, health, dignity, and even the lives of the individuals belonging to such groups."

Driving out a people group from their land - while also killing tons of them - constitutes genocide as it also succeeds in disintergration of their political and social institutions. (Since land was more heavily tied to cultural identity back then.)

Thank you for reading.

Just out of curiosity, why does your profile say that you're a Christian?
A True Work of Art: http://www.debate.org...

Atheist Logic: http://www.debate.org...

Bulproof formally admits to being a troll (Post 16):
http://www.debate.org...
LogicalLunatic
Posts: 1,633
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2014 10:17:06 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/14/2014 9:26:09 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 9/14/2014 6:17:25 PM, LogicalLunatic wrote:
At 9/14/2014 6:08:44 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
It's like moral sense goes out the window when it comes to some Christians "defending" the bible. Those same Christians in any other context would unequivocally be condemning the very same rationalizations if they came in defense of anything else except the bible.

So what would you suggest? That we simply don't defend the Bible?

Don't "defend" it in a way that is dishonest, morally contemptible, and makes Christanity look bad? I.e. stop making excuses for slavery, rape, and genocide.

So now you accuse me of being dishonest, do ya?

And yes, I would condemn genocide in all cases except for those that God ordered in the Bible. And no, I do not consider myself a hypocrite for this.

Well, you are one. Tell me, would you accept this claim if this was in any other sacred literature? That God - a perfectly moral being - ordered genocide?
A True Work of Art: http://www.debate.org...

Atheist Logic: http://www.debate.org...

Bulproof formally admits to being a troll (Post 16):
http://www.debate.org...
bulproof
Posts: 25,210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2014 10:25:13 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/14/2014 10:15:22 PM, LogicalLunatic wrote:
At 9/14/2014 9:55:23 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 9/13/2014 4:19:35 PM, LogicalLunatic wrote:


I won't address the others just because I can only deal with so much in one post and I'll keep this brief. I can't possibly point out everything so, so wrong with just the following, much less the preceding paragraphs. smh Let's start.

3. Genocide
Okay, so why did God order the Israelites to kill the Canaanites? Well, most likely because the Canaanites were utterly depraved.

1. Do you realize that that justification follows the pattern of rationalization that EVERY group tells themselves in order to justify horrendous acts upon another person/people group? Do you realize that is exactly how the Hutu's spoke of the Tusti's? Presumably you think the genocide of the Tustsi was a great evil (if you don't, we simply have nothing to talk about anymore). Now - tell me - WHAT IS DIFFERENT IN THIS CASE? What is different in the case of the Europeans (under alleged divine sanction) committing genocide on the native population and the Israelites committing genocide on the Canaanites? You don't accept that the Europeans actually had divine sanction (and, again, if you do, we simply have nothing more to talk about) - so why do you accept that the Israelites did?

2. The Israelites were NO BETTER than the Canaanites in terms of depravity. (Records of this are recorded all throughout the bible.)

3. It's remarkably convenient how the Canaanites JUST OUTSIDE the Israelites' promised land were fit to married and procreated with, but the ones INSIDE the promised land had to be exterminated. Almost sounds as if they were creating a rationalization to justify a murderous land grab...eh?

4. If they were "utterly depraved" why did God not send a prophet to preach to them to turn from their wicked ways (instead of, y'know, killing them all)? He did so with Jonah and Nineveh, which was undoubtedly more wicked.

5. EVEN IF the parents deserved death, why exactly did the children deserve death? They were innocent.

They committed the sin of Infanticide often,

This is breathtaking. Okay, so for the sin of infanticide God orders the Israelites to kill all the children. Think about that. Seriously. Do you know not see how bad your logic is right here?

and they probably committed a large range of sexual sins from fornication to homosexuality to bestiality to raping children.

All bad (except homosexual orientation isn't a sin), and only the last one is even arguable for the death penalty. The israelites also commited these sins.

If they were allowed to live, they would've corrupted the Israelites and caused them to also sacrifice babies, molest children, and get themselves drunk all the time.

Lol, well except for the fact that the Israelites regularly did that anyway. Seems like Gods plan didn't work. So on top of ordering genocide it would seem you think God is inefficient and bad at future plan because even AFTER this alleged genocide that didn't stop the Israelites from doing these corrupt things.

You are basically admitting that in free and open competition on the marketplace of ideas with other relgions Yahweh would have lost to the allure of all other Gods (wouldn't seem so powerful or smart, huh?) so he had to order that all competition exterminated.

And again, this is the same rhetoric that many have used to justify genocide in the past. It's astonishing you don't see this.

What about the children, you may ask? Well, the children are likely in Heaven now. And the animals, well, they were just animals.


Congratulations. Are you in favor of abortion? If not, you should be. Because you just justified abortion. All those fetus' and children killed in the womb? Well...they're probably in heaven now. Are you a fan of Andrea Yates by any chance? She drowned all five of her children on the supposition that they would go to heaven because she didn't want them to go to hell. Same logic right?

And, no, animals are not "just animals". They are made in God's image too.

Also, the Canaanites would've been antagonistic towards Israel, so if the Israelites didn't kill the Canaanites, the Canaanites would've killed the Israelites. Simply put, there wasn't room for both peoples in Israel, if you get what I mean.


Right. The a God of love and peace who advocated turning the other cheek and responding to opressors in a peaceful way could think of no other way to respond to attackers except to try to exterminate their entire tribe.

But then, there is something else that most people overlook.
Look at this verse:
http://biblehub.com...
In it, God said that He would "drive out" the Canaanites. Excuse me if the basic meanings of English words suddenly change to mean something completely different, but "drive out" and "kill" are not synonyms.
In other words...
Perhaps not all of the Canaanites were killed. Perhaps they were simply driven out of the land.


No one overlooks it but it just seems like you don't know what the actual definition of genocide entails. Genocide doesn't simply mean that each and every member of the a people group is killed.

"Generally speaking, genocide does not necessarily mean the immediate destruction of a nation, except when accomplished by mass killings of all members of a nation. It is intended rather to signify a coordinated plan of different actions aiming at the destruction of essential foundations of the life of national groups, with the aim of annihilating the groups themselves. The objectives of such a plan would be the disintegration of the political and social institutions, of culture, language, national feelings, religion, and the economic existence of national groups, and the destruction of the personal security, liberty, health, dignity, and even the lives of the individuals belonging to such groups."

Driving out a people group from their land - while also killing tons of them - constitutes genocide as it also succeeds in disintergration of their political and social institutions. (Since land was more heavily tied to cultural identity back then.)

Thank you for reading.

Just out of curiosity, why does your profile say that you're a Christian?

Maybe because from what I've read he's the only one here who is.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2014 10:38:56 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/14/2014 10:15:22 PM, LogicalLunatic wrote:
At 9/14/2014 9:55:23 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 9/13/2014 4:19:35 PM, LogicalLunatic wrote:


I won't address the others just because I can only deal with so much in one post and I'll keep this brief. I can't possibly point out everything so, so wrong with just the following, much less the preceding paragraphs. smh Let's start.

3. Genocide
Okay, so why did God order the Israelites to kill the Canaanites? Well, most likely because the Canaanites were utterly depraved.

1. Do you realize that that justification follows the pattern of rationalization that EVERY group tells themselves in order to justify horrendous acts upon another person/people group? Do you realize that is exactly how the Hutu's spoke of the Tusti's? Presumably you think the genocide of the Tustsi was a great evil (if you don't, we simply have nothing to talk about anymore). Now - tell me - WHAT IS DIFFERENT IN THIS CASE? What is different in the case of the Europeans (under alleged divine sanction) committing genocide on the native population and the Israelites committing genocide on the Canaanites? You don't accept that the Europeans actually had divine sanction (and, again, if you do, we simply have nothing more to talk about) - so why do you accept that the Israelites did?

2. The Israelites were NO BETTER than the Canaanites in terms of depravity. (Records of this are recorded all throughout the bible.)

3. It's remarkably convenient how the Canaanites JUST OUTSIDE the Israelites' promised land were fit to married and procreated with, but the ones INSIDE the promised land had to be exterminated. Almost sounds as if they were creating a rationalization to justify a murderous land grab...eh?

4. If they were "utterly depraved" why did God not send a prophet to preach to them to turn from their wicked ways (instead of, y'know, killing them all)? He did so with Jonah and Nineveh, which was undoubtedly more wicked.

5. EVEN IF the parents deserved death, why exactly did the children deserve death? They were innocent.

They committed the sin of Infanticide often,

This is breathtaking. Okay, so for the sin of infanticide God orders the Israelites to kill all the children. Think about that. Seriously. Do you know not see how bad your logic is right here?

and they probably committed a large range of sexual sins from fornication to homosexuality to bestiality to raping children.

All bad (except homosexual orientation isn't a sin), and only the last one is even arguable for the death penalty. The israelites also commited these sins.

If they were allowed to live, they would've corrupted the Israelites and caused them to also sacrifice babies, molest children, and get themselves drunk all the time.

Lol, well except for the fact that the Israelites regularly did that anyway. Seems like Gods plan didn't work. So on top of ordering genocide it would seem you think God is inefficient and bad at future plan because even AFTER this alleged genocide that didn't stop the Israelites from doing these corrupt things.

You are basically admitting that in free and open competition on the marketplace of ideas with other relgions Yahweh would have lost to the allure of all other Gods (wouldn't seem so powerful or smart, huh?) so he had to order that all competition exterminated.

And again, this is the same rhetoric that many have used to justify genocide in the past. It's astonishing you don't see this.

What about the children, you may ask? Well, the children are likely in Heaven now. And the animals, well, they were just animals.


Congratulations. Are you in favor of abortion? If not, you should be. Because you just justified abortion. All those fetus' and children killed in the womb? Well...they're probably in heaven now. Are you a fan of Andrea Yates by any chance? She drowned all five of her children on the supposition that they would go to heaven because she didn't want them to go to hell. Same logic right?

And, no, animals are not "just animals". They are made in God's image too.

Also, the Canaanites would've been antagonistic towards Israel, so if the Israelites didn't kill the Canaanites, the Canaanites would've killed the Israelites. Simply put, there wasn't room for both peoples in Israel, if you get what I mean.


Right. The a God of love and peace who advocated turning the other cheek and responding to opressors in a peaceful way could think of no other way to respond to attackers except to try to exterminate their entire tribe.

But then, there is something else that most people overlook.
Look at this verse:
http://biblehub.com...
In it, God said that He would "drive out" the Canaanites. Excuse me if the basic meanings of English words suddenly change to mean something completely different, but "drive out" and "kill" are not synonyms.
In other words...
Perhaps not all of the Canaanites were killed. Perhaps they were simply driven out of the land.


No one overlooks it but it just seems like you don't know what the actual definition of genocide entails. Genocide doesn't simply mean that each and every member of the a people group is killed.

"Generally speaking, genocide does not necessarily mean the immediate destruction of a nation, except when accomplished by mass killings of all members of a nation. It is intended rather to signify a coordinated plan of different actions aiming at the destruction of essential foundations of the life of national groups, with the aim of annihilating the groups themselves. The objectives of such a plan would be the disintegration of the political and social institutions, of culture, language, national feelings, religion, and the economic existence of national groups, and the destruction of the personal security, liberty, health, dignity, and even the lives of the individuals belonging to such groups."

Driving out a people group from their land - while also killing tons of them - constitutes genocide as it also succeeds in disintergration of their political and social institutions. (Since land was more heavily tied to cultural identity back then.)

Thank you for reading.

Just out of curiosity, why does your profile say that you're a Christian?

Why does yours? I'm not the one defending genocide. The so utterly contrary to Jesus' teachings it astonishes me that you don't see this. Besides, you're aware that there are Christians who don't hold the same view of the bible you do, right? Again, I don't feel the need to justify atrocities - and doing so makes Christianity look bad. Now...will you respond to my points?
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
ChrisL
Posts: 136
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2014 1:15:12 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/14/2014 10:38:56 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 9/14/2014 10:15:22 PM, LogicalLunatic wrote:
At 9/14/2014 9:55:23 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 9/13/2014 4:19:35 PM, LogicalLunatic wrote:


I won't address the others just because I can only deal with so much in one post and I'll keep this brief. I can't possibly point out everything so, so wrong with just the following, much less the preceding paragraphs. smh Let's start.

3. Genocide
Okay, so why did God order the Israelites to kill the Canaanites? Well, most likely because the Canaanites were utterly depraved.

1. Do you realize that that justification follows the pattern of rationalization that EVERY group tells themselves in order to justify horrendous acts upon another person/people group? Do you realize that is exactly how the Hutu's spoke of the Tusti's? Presumably you think the genocide of the Tustsi was a great evil (if you don't, we simply have nothing to talk about anymore). Now - tell me - WHAT IS DIFFERENT IN THIS CASE? What is different in the case of the Europeans (under alleged divine sanction) committing genocide on the native population and the Israelites committing genocide on the Canaanites? You don't accept that the Europeans actually had divine sanction (and, again, if you do, we simply have nothing more to talk about) - so why do you accept that the Israelites did?

2. The Israelites were NO BETTER than the Canaanites in terms of depravity. (Records of this are recorded all throughout the bible.)

3. It's remarkably convenient how the Canaanites JUST OUTSIDE the Israelites' promised land were fit to married and procreated with, but the ones INSIDE the promised land had to be exterminated. Almost sounds as if they were creating a rationalization to justify a murderous land grab...eh?

4. If they were "utterly depraved" why did God not send a prophet to preach to them to turn from their wicked ways (instead of, y'know, killing them all)? He did so with Jonah and Nineveh, which was undoubtedly more wicked.

5. EVEN IF the parents deserved death, why exactly did the children deserve death? They were innocent.

They committed the sin of Infanticide often,

This is breathtaking. Okay, so for the sin of infanticide God orders the Israelites to kill all the children. Think about that. Seriously. Do you know not see how bad your logic is right here?

and they probably committed a large range of sexual sins from fornication to homosexuality to bestiality to raping children.

All bad (except homosexual orientation isn't a sin), and only the last one is even arguable for the death penalty. The israelites also commited these sins.

If they were allowed to live, they would've corrupted the Israelites and caused them to also sacrifice babies, molest children, and get themselves drunk all the time.

Lol, well except for the fact that the Israelites regularly did that anyway. Seems like Gods plan didn't work. So on top of ordering genocide it would seem you think God is inefficient and bad at future plan because even AFTER this alleged genocide that didn't stop the Israelites from doing these corrupt things.

You are basically admitting that in free and open competition on the marketplace of ideas with other relgions Yahweh would have lost to the allure of all other Gods (wouldn't seem so powerful or smart, huh?) so he had to order that all competition exterminated.

And again, this is the same rhetoric that many have used to justify genocide in the past. It's astonishing you don't see this.

What about the children, you may ask? Well, the children are likely in Heaven now. And the animals, well, they were just animals.


Congratulations. Are you in favor of abortion? If not, you should be. Because you just justified abortion. All those fetus' and children killed in the womb? Well...they're probably in heaven now. Are you a fan of Andrea Yates by any chance? She drowned all five of her children on the supposition that they would go to heaven because she didn't want them to go to hell. Same logic right?

And, no, animals are not "just animals". They are made in God's image too.

Also, the Canaanites would've been antagonistic towards Israel, so if the Israelites didn't kill the Canaanites, the Canaanites would've killed the Israelites. Simply put, there wasn't room for both peoples in Israel, if you get what I mean.


Right. The a God of love and peace who advocated turning the other cheek and responding to opressors in a peaceful way could think of no other way to respond to attackers except to try to exterminate their entire tribe.

But then, there is something else that most people overlook.
Look at this verse:
http://biblehub.com...
In it, God said that He would "drive out" the Canaanites. Excuse me if the basic meanings of English words suddenly change to mean something completely different, but "drive out" and "kill" are not synonyms.
In other words...
Perhaps not all of the Canaanites were killed. Perhaps they were simply driven out of the land.


No one overlooks it but it just seems like you don't know what the actual definition of genocide entails. Genocide doesn't simply mean that each and every member of the a people group is killed.

"Generally speaking, genocide does not necessarily mean the immediate destruction of a nation, except when accomplished by mass killings of all members of a nation. It is intended rather to signify a coordinated plan of different actions aiming at the destruction of essential foundations of the life of national groups, with the aim of annihilating the groups themselves. The objectives of such a plan would be the disintegration of the political and social institutions, of culture, language, national feelings, religion, and the economic existence of national groups, and the destruction of the personal security, liberty, health, dignity, and even the lives of the individuals belonging to such groups."

Driving out a people group from their land - while also killing tons of them - constitutes genocide as it also succeeds in disintergration of their political and social institutions. (Since land was more heavily tied to cultural identity back then.)

Thank you for reading.

Just out of curiosity, why does your profile say that you're a Christian?

Why does yours? I'm not the one defending genocide. The so utterly contrary to Jesus' teachings it astonishes me that you don't see this. Besides, you're aware that there are Christians who don't hold the same view of the bible you do, right? Again, I don't feel the need to justify atrocities - and doing so makes Christianity look bad. Now...will you respond to my points?

Man I wish I had time to hit all your points. I have one question tho. On what basis do you reject certain parts of scripture but accept others. It seems to me that you are being completely inconsistent. How do you know that genocide is wrong if not for the scripture? But when the same scriptures tell us that God commanded genocide, you reject it. You don't see the double standard there?

It seems you take a similar position to that of Roger Olsen who claims that the Old Testament were inspired writings of what the Isrealites thought about God. This kind of view directly rejects the inspired nature if the text itself. It is very Marcionistic. Certainly not orthodox.
neutral
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2014 6:24:01 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/16/2014 1:15:12 AM, ChrisL wrote:


Man I wish I had time to hit all your points. I have one question tho. On what basis do you reject certain parts of scripture but accept others. It seems to me that you are being completely inconsistent. How do you know that genocide is wrong if not for the scripture? But when the same scriptures tell us that God commanded genocide, you reject it. You don't see the double standard there?

It seems you take a similar position to that of Roger Olsen who claims that the Old Testament were inspired writings of what the Isrealites thought about God. This kind of view directly rejects the inspired nature if the text itself. It is very Marcionistic. Certainly not orthodox.

Because there is a littel thing in the Bible called an exhortation to gain wisdom.

That means you seek understanding.

So lets talk genocide, because what atheists do is ... just make te claim that it is genoicide - without actually applying the standard.

Is self defense permitted? Even against an implacable foe in an exestential war? And make no doubt it, that is what Joshua faced in Israel. His enemies were implacable, they started the war, and they fully intended to kill every last Jew alive. Joshua didn't go to God because he wanted to slay his enemy, he went and asked for advice - precisely because the war would be long and bloody. God gave him the same advice that Patton would, That William T Sherman would, That Zuchov would have given him: Despite the heavy heart you must do your duty and slay your enemy without mercy - then, and only then, will this war be ended.

That is not genocide, that is the reality of the combat Joshua found himself in. It is akin to the Nazi attack on the Soviets, and of the half million Germans captured at Stalingrade, only abouy 5,000 returned. No one accuses the Soviets of genocide for doing what was necessary in that instance. And for Joshua this was either the end of Israel ... or not. He chose.

That two thousand years later, rather than compare it to Stalingrade we are comparing it to the Halocaust is nothing short of prejudiced bigotry - ironic given what has happened to the Jews in modern time. The Jews did not simply waltz up and slaughter the innocent as the Nazi's did. It wasa full on war - one the Jews won. One that had they lost, would have resulted in each of them being slaughtered without mercy - and like all other ancient battles of similiar proportions, atheists would not bat an eye.

Why do we know this? Because we seek wisdom.

And I find it very odd that I have never seen a single atheist condemn William T Sherman's total war on the South - that broke the South and ended the worst war in US History. Stopping THAT was ... genocide? Or necessary?

Again, atheists are mighty quick to slap that card down, but you guys run from an actual discussion on the use of violence in history.

Simply put, this looks far more like standard poison the well fallacy then any actual concern of genocide.
bulproof
Posts: 25,210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2014 7:04:18 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
When genocide is necessary, as in Srebrenica then it is justified, that's what makes genocide objectively moral.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin