Christians do not "own" morality

[PsychoSarah]

And if you want to be ignorant be my guest. Once again it just goes to show you do not read or investigate anything.

We read stuff, I have read to the bible, and many other religious texts as well. Don't assume we haven't done that much.

 

[Devnet]

If a portion of a population became so corrupted and evil to where they were sacrificing their own children, cannibalizing people, to where their DNA had been genetically altered when they agreed to sell their women and daughters to be raped by fallen angels, to where their conscience had been genetically altered by these demonic angels, then these people are no longer human beings but nephilim and progeny of such. They were not God's creation any longer.

There is a history behind why things happen in our history that is not being told. You have to go back to Genesis and the ancient texts as well as look at archeological finds and cultural history. Then compare it to Revelations and today's times.

I'm sorry, but are you saying that you feel that the Nephilim-human hybrids had their consciences dictated by their DNA? That they somehow lacked free will because of something they never had control over, something that was determined at their conception? And that for some reason God felt that the appropriate response to this issue was not to do something like alter their DNA so that they weren't unwillingly evil, but to kill them? And if these hybrids (who were evil because of their DNA) weren't God's creation anymore, then whose creation were they? Because you seem to be asserting that they were created evil, but not by God.

I feel like I'm not accurately representing your position, but I also have no idea what else you could be saying.

 

[Gadarene]

Your missing the point again. This has nothing to do with Nazis and I am not at all saying that nor do I believe in these evil people. If you don't want to read a book or watch a lecture about any of this subject it's your choice. So whatever. I never once mentioned Nazism or anything regarding what those evil people did.

That does not mean your arguments don't have these parallels with Nazi ideology. Whether you like this fact or not is irrelevant.

If you do not want these parallels pointed out, then stop being an apologist for genocide.

 

[Ruthie24]

Nazi's hated the Jews because they thought they were genetically inferior to the Aryan race, so they sought to eliminate them from the face of the Earth.

You claimed that the people were so corrupted that their DNA was changing and that they were so evil they had to be eliminated from the face of the Earth.

Pretty similar.

There is no similarity in this whatsoever. One mans diabolical quest to eliminate innocent people is not what happened in the books of Enoch but then you guys don't read this so what's the point of this discussion?

 

[Gadarene]

There is no similarity in this whatsoever. One mans diabolical quest to eliminate innocent people is not what happened in the books of Enoch but then you guys don't read this so what's the point of this discussion?

And hello relativism.

 

[Ruthie24]

That does not mean your arguments don't have these parallels. Whether you like this fact or not is irrelevant.

If you do not want these parallels pointed out, then stop being an apologist for genocide.

Gad you are choosing to see these parallels from your limited understanding and I am saying they do not exist. When I pointed out multiple authors and texts to read and YouTube all of you refused to look at them.

Enough said. I'm done here. Later.

 

[Syd the Human]

There is no similarity in this whatsoever. One mans diabolical quest to eliminate innocent people is not what happened in the books of Enoch but then you guys don't read this so what's the point of this discussion?

You claimed that they were so evil that their dna had been corrupted, as in not even human anymore.

The Nazis thought that people who were Jewish had inferior dna and were evil.


There are similarities here, regardless of whether you see them or not. You were the one who brought up DNA, which isn't even mentioned in the Bible.

 

[bhsmte]

And if you want to be ignorant be my guest. Once again it just goes to show you do not read or investigate anything.

How do you know what I have investigated?

Sounds like you are making preconceived assumption, to make yourself feel better.

I will say again, I do not believe books written by people that do not have supportive evidence and or can not be reconciled with reality. I think that is pretty clear.

 

[Gadarene]

Gad you are choosing to see these parallels from your limited understanding and I am saying they do not exist. When I pointed out multiple authors and texts to read and YouTube all of you refused to look at them.

Summarise their arguments. You can do that, surely? Goodness, even references to the pertinent sections of Jasher, Enoch etc would be a start.

In the mean time, maybe I could refer you to Mein Kampf?

You need to get off your high horse, stop name dropping books without even mentioning the arguments they make, and stop assuming the reason people don't agree with you is because they haven't read what you have.

As with your alt-med whiffle, I've done this merry dance before for many years. You are not detailing anything new whatsoever to me.

 

[bhsmte]

Spooky stuff here boys and girls.

 

[Ruthie24]

Summarise their arguments. You can do that, surely? Goodness, even references to the pertinent sections of Jasher, Enoch etc would be a start.

In the mean time, maybe I could refer you to Mein Kampf?

You need to get off your high horse, stop name dropping books without even mentioning the arguments they make, and stop assuming the reason people don't agree with you is because they haven't read what you have.

As with your alt-med whiffle, I've done this merry dance before for many years. You are not detailing anything new whatsoever to me.

Gad I'm frankly not interested in your attacks on my character because you are just trying to get a rise out of me. That's not going to happen.

I see no reason to give any of you a summary of anything since all of you are unwilling to do any research of the resources I have given. When I was challenged by an atheist as I was on my last vestige of belief I did the research, the reading, the article digging the comparisons and it took me three years of hard work. You cannot even spend one hour watching a YouTube video. That says a LOT.

Secondly, as part of a diagnostic paper on personality disorders I researched Adolf Hitler. He was a staunch occultist who masqueraded as a Christian and was able to appeal to the hatred of the Jew and other races. On the occult side Hitler was attacking Gods people because he was possessed by a nephilim spirit that he invited into himself in one of his Satanic rituals with high ranking SS officers. Hitler was thought to have narcissistic PD and antisocial PD as well. This type of Satanic cult absolutely hates Gods people and anyone who defends them. They frequently masquerade themselves into other faiths in order to blend in. The types of people that God ordered the Jews to kill were these occultists who had butchered, enslaved, canabalized, and sacrificed the Jewish people and other races for centuries. So you cannot compare the two and in fact you are reversing them.

Anyway, all this is doing is showing me a pattern of ongoing personal attacks. If any of you were even remotely interested in reciprocal dialogue you would have presented your own resources. None of you have.

So enjoy your baseless attacks on someone else as I see right through you.

 

[Gadarene]

Gad I'm frankly not interested in your attacks on my character because you are just trying to get a rise out of me. That's not going to happen.

You are an apologist for genocide irrespective of what else I say. Your own words condemn you there.

Again, you don't like it - retract your stance.

I see no reason to give any of you a summary of anything since all of you are unwilling to do any research of the resources I have given.

And my request for references in the Apocryphal books you cited was....what, exactly?

I'm not traipsing through three whole apocryphal books to try and figure out what bits of it someone who sees Nephilim under every bed construes as justification for divinely inspired genocide.

Give the references - make your case.

When I was challenged by an atheist as I was on my last vestige of belief I did the research, the reading, the article digging the comparisons and it took me three years of hard work. You cannot even spend one hour watching a YouTube video. That says a LOT.

No, Ruthie, I'm not going to spend an hour watching a youtube video on a topic that I've already argued to death multiple times before over the last few years, presented by someone who hasn't presented a single original argument on the topic.

You have no track record here of cogent argumentation or credibility. I'm not wasting an hour of my time on you until you've actually demonstrated in-thread you have something to offer.

Secondly, as part of a diagnostic paper on personality disorders I researched Adolf Hitler. He was a staunch occultist who masqueraded as a Christian and was able to appeal to the hatred of the Jew and other races. On the occult side Hitler was attacking Gods people because he was possessed by a nephilim spirit

Anything that isn't nephilim to you? This is like your constant irrelevant dropping of "allopathic" into a discussion when talking about acupuncture and Ayurveda.

that he invited into himself in one of his Satanic rituals with high ranking SS officers. Hitler was thought to have narcissistic PD and antisocial PD as well. This type of Satanic cult absolutely hates Gods people and anyone who defends them. They frequently masquerade themselves into other faiths in order to blend in. The types of people that God ordered the Jews to kill were these occultists who had butchered, enslaved, canabalized, and sacrificed the Jewish people and other races for centuries. So you cannot compare the two and in fact you are reversing them.

And yet what they had in common is what I pointed out and what you are steadfastly ignoring - they justified genocides by appealing to genetic defects and purported genetic inferiotity.

You know, just like you did.

But if the Nephilim difference is so important, then some clear and objective proof of their existence would be great

Anyway, all this is doing is showing me a pattern of ongoing personal attacks. If any of you were even remotely interested in reciprocal dialogue you would have presented your own resources. None of you have.

I don't need to present my own resources against a claim you haven't presented any justification for. Name dropping a load of references and running away isn't justification. The handful of arguments you have made in this thread I've countered, and you've evaded responding to them.

I've asked you for references and then for some reason you refuse to give them while claiming I'm not interested in looking.

Back your arguments up as requested or lose credibility further. Give the references in the Apocrypha - summarise the main points of the arguments.

Just the references would be a start. It's a line of type at most.

So enjoy your baseless attacks on someone else as I see right through you.

Brave words from a genocide apologist

 

[Ruthie24]

And again, the clear and objective proof is in the references and resources I've given.

I also said that I am by no means a scholar and cannot do these books justice in one post because there is so much information. I do not feel a summarization is a fair representation of the facts because there is so much there. I personally rely on PhD scholars plus ancient texts for my information as this is not my profession.

Also, you've not shared any resources or books with me to back up any of your claims. I would be more than willing to discuss them with you.

And as far as me being a genocide apologist, I know who I am as a person, the people who know me as a woman and professional know that I never condone that type of behavior. So once again please stop with the personal attacks on my character. I think it's kind of obvious you are doing this intentionally.

Also, if you know so much about the book of Enoch as you say you argued for years about, why don't you tell me what you think about it?

 

[Gadarene]

And again, the clear and objective proof is in the references and resources I've given.

And where precisely in the sources is the argument addressed?

I just want Apocryphal references, Ruthie - are you incapable even of providing those?

I also said that I am by no means a scholar and cannot do these books justice in one post because there is so much information. I do not feel a summarization is a fair representation of the facts because there is so much there. I personally rely on PhD scholars plus ancient texts for my information as this is not my profession.

And you can't narrow your references down beyond authors' names? Come on.

Also, you've not shared any resources or books with me to back up any of your claims. I would be more than willing to discuss them with you.

I don't need resources or books to deconstruct the few arguments you have presented. You are the one claiming Nephilim exist and that divinely ordained genocide is ok, I have made no positive claims. As it stands, you have not responded to my last counterargument.

And as far as me being a genocide apologist, I know who I am as a person, the people who know me as a woman and professional know that I never condone that type of behavior. So once again please stop with the personal attacks on my character. I think it's kind of obvious you are doing this intentionally.

Because you have engaged in apologetics for the genocides inspired by your deity.

Ergo, you are a genocide apologist.

Again - if you don't like this, retract your stance.

Goodness, if you are going to hold such a horrible opinion, at least own it.

Also, if you know so much about the book of Enoch as you say you argued for years about, why don't you tell me what you think about it?

It was your claim - you make the argument. I am not making your argument for you.

I expect it will be about as relevant as most appeals to Bible verses are - that is, not very - but I don't know which bits of those books you think relate to the argument. Given that you also seem to think nephilim are everywhere, well, let's just say I think our heads work rather differently, so it would probably be best if you give your take on what your own source says about your own argument.

Again, all this could be avoided if you simply gave the references as requested. Why won't you?

 

[Ruthie24]

And where precisely in the sources is the argument addressed?

I just want Apocryphal references, Ruthie - are you incapable even of providing those?

And you can't narrow your references down beyond authors' names? Come on.

I don't need resources or books to deconstruct the few arguments you have presented. You are the one claiming Nephilim exist and that divinely ordained genocide is ok, I have made no positive claims. As it stands, you have not responded to my last counterargument.

Because you have engaged in apologetics for the genocides inspired by your deity.

Ergo, you are a genocide apologist.

Again - if you don't like this, retract your stance.

Goodness, if you are going to hold such a horrible opinion, at least own it.

It was your claim - you make the argument. I am not making your argument for you.

I expect it will be about as relevant as most appeals to Bible verses are, that is, not very - but I don't know which bits of those books you think relate to the argument. Given that you also seem to think nephilim are everywhere, well, let's just say I think our heads work rather differently, so it would probably be best if you give your take on what your own sources says about your own argument.

Again, all this could be avoided if you simply gave the references as requested. Why won't you?

Because I'm tired of being attacked that's why. I'm not going to own up to something that is not in my nature, something that goes against my core being. You want me to detract something that I never said, something you inferred which was not from my own hand. In my country if someone thinks genocide is a good thing they are called a neonazi or a kkk person. I don't know how it rolls over there in the UK but here it's basically a kick below the belt and it's offensive.

Maybe over there it's cool to be rude and cut people down idk but to me it's not respectful or nice at all. When I engage in discussion with people in person I actually try to find out what they are all about and why they think the way they do. I don't go all half cocked waving the hater of the day flag. In my job I've sat down with murderers and rapists and victims of horrific crimes to get assessments on them and I don't jump the gun to judgment without getting to know the person first. In fact no one would talk to me in my field if they thought for a second I was a racist or a genocidal apologist. It just doesn't happen in the work I do. You are either authentic and the real McCoy or you are out the door.

The problem of evil is such a huge moral dilemma for humanity these days and for me personally, this is why I've gone on this dogged search of mine. Do I think I'm 100% right? Nope. In fact I scour books and news to see if I'm wrong. If I think an author is full of crap, I look at sources that suspect that and sources that back it up. I'm not like one of those drive by fundies or Christians. In fact I don't even go to church much. Churches turn me off because of the way I see them treating people.

Anyway I'm getting tangential. Give me a few minutes and I'll post the book of Enoch summary.

And by the way, I believe in science as much as you do but I have my reasons for why it's gone astray.

 

[Gadarene]

Because I'm tired of being attacked that's why. I'm not going to own up to something that is not in my nature, something that goes against my core being. You want me to detract something that I never said, something you inferred which was not from my own hand. In my country if someone thinks genocide is a good thing they are called a neonazi or a kkk person. I don't know how it rolls over there in the UK but here it's basically a kick below the belt and it's offensive.

It has nothing to do with my nationality (what was it you were saying about kicks below the belt?) and everything to do with what you have posted here - your lawyering of whether it's really genocide or not is the problem, even though God wiped out a race in part because of their genetics.

It evidently is part of your nature. You've just engaged in it, and made excuses as to why it's different when you do it - all the while criticising relativism.

Maybe over there it's cool to be rude and cut people down idk but to me it's not respectful or nice at all. When I engage in discussion with people in person I actually try to find out what they are all about and why they think the way they do. I don't go all half cocked waving the hater of the day flag. In my job I've sat down with murderers and rapists and victims of horrific crimes to get assessments on them and I don't jump the gun to judgment without getting to know the person first. In fact no one would talk to me in my field if they thought for a second I was a racist or a genocidal apologist. It just doesn't happen in the work I do. You are either authentic and the real McCoy or you are out the door.

Well, maybe they simply haven't yet asked what you think of the Biblical genocides

The problem of evil is such a huge moral dilemma for humanity these days and for me personally, this is why I've gone on this dogged search of mine. Do I think I'm 100% right? Nope. In fact I scour books and news to see if I'm wrong. If I think an author is full of crap, I look at sources that suspect that and sources that back it up. I'm not like one of those drive by fundies or Christians. In fact I don't even go to church much. Churches turn me off because of the way I see them treating people.

Commendable (and don't stop there, for that matter), but that does not justify either your stance or how you respond when the unpleasant ramefications of it or pointed out.

Anyway I'm getting tangential. Give me a few minutes and I'll post the book of Enoch summary.

Finding the book itself should be pretty easy - I'm just looking for the bit relevant to the earlier discussion.

 

[Ruthie24]

It has nothing to do with my nationality (what was it you were saying about kicks below the belt?) and everything to do with what you have posted here - your lawyering of whether it's really genocide or not is the problem, even though God wiped out a race in part because of their genetics.

It evidently is part of your nature. You've just engaged in it, and made excuses as to why it's different when you do it - all the while criticising relativism.

Well, maybe they simply haven't yet asked what you think of the Biblical genocides

Commendable (and don't stop there, for that matter), but that does not justify either your stance or how you respond when the unpleasant ramefications of it or pointed out.

Finding the book itself should be pretty easy - I'm just looking for the bit relevant to the earlier discussion.

I guess what I have to say about the genocide apologist thing is you are entitled to feel that way as a person, but we are strangers and you don't know me nor is it in my nature at all. So I don't know what more to say about that. By the way there are Jews and Christians who feel the same way as I do and they do not advocate or apologize for genocide either.

I have several books of Enoch from different authors. I want to present it properly as I'm not a scholar. Sorry, I'll have it posted in a little bit.

 

[Chany]

I never read the entire Bible and I don't plan to. The concept of a deist being is already suspect from a logical perspective. It's, at best, the answer of "it's possible".

But the theistic claims have yet to come close to any logical coherence and any sort of burden of proof. The parts of the Bible i have read are either 1) basic platitudes and morals a.k.a. generic truths or 2) inconsistent, factually wrong, and morally/logically unjustifiable.

The question is this:

If one can prevent, restrain, inhibit, and subsequently lock away a wrongdoer who is aiming to hurt others, is it still morally justifiable to kill them?

I answer no. Killing people is always a negative. In a world where we could stop all criminals without harming them, we should stop all criminals without harming them. The only reason a killing is justified is when the only safe, for others and yourself, way to handle the unjust in question is to kill them. They must pose a significant threat to other people, including yourself. If there is a way to safely and surely disarm and disable a crazed ax-killer, then the morally right thing to do is to use that safe method.

Obviously, in the real world, people like police officers and the average citizen do not have this luxury available to them. The ax-killer is seconds away from killing an innocent victim, the only safe and sure option to protect that victim is to shoot and possible kill the ax-killer. In this situation, the killing would be justified.

I'll go even further and say that there are situations where executing a person is morally justified. When a murderer cannot be safely restrained and stands a good possibility of hurting another, then killing the individual is morally permissible. If Gadarene, Jeffery Damher, and I are all stranded on a tropical island and Dahmer kills me, Gadarene is justified in killing Damher, even if he could safely and surely subdue Dahmer in the short term. The reason why is that there is no way to maintain that level of safety. He cannot protect himself from Dahmer on a stranded island alone. There are no jails, no safe ways of feeding Dahmer, and no way to ensure Dahmer won't easily kill him later on.

Do you agree with my reasoning that killing is only justifiable in situations where the safety of others is, in a very real way, compromised without killing the wrongdoer in question?

If no, explain.

If yes:

In what instance can an all-powerful and all-knowing being have a justifiable killing, when, in all instances, the being can inhibit the actions others indefinitely through no harmful means? If the only justifiable killing is one where there is no other option, how can a justifiable killing exist for being where there is always another option?

I don't want Bible verses. The Bible has offered me nothing but wasted time, tears, and generic and simplistic platitudes.

I want an intellectual and philosophical response.

If you can't answer my questions, then I have no reason to accept your claims that some of God's genocides were morally justifiable.

 

[Ruthie24]

I never read the entire Bible and I don't plan to. The concept of a deist being is already suspect from a logical perspective. It's, at best, the answer of "it's possible".

But the theistic claims have yet to come close to any logical coherence and any sort of burden of proof. The parts of the Bible i have read are either 1) basic platitudes and morals a.k.a. generic truths or 2) inconsistent, factually wrong, and morally/logically unjustifiable.

The question is this:

If one can prevent, restrain, inhibit, and subsequently lock away a wrongdoer who is aiming to hurt others, is it still morally justifiable to kill them?

I answer no. Killing people is always a negative. In a world where we could stop all criminals without harming them, we should stop all criminals without harming them. The only reason a killing is justified is when the only safe, for others and yourself, way to handle the unjust in question is to kill them. They must pose a significant threat to other people, including yourself. If there is a way to safely and surely disarm and disable a crazed ax-killer, then the morally right thing to do is to use that safe method.

Obviously, in the real world, people like police officers and the average citizen do not have this luxury available to them. The ax-killer is seconds away from killing an innocent victim, the only safe and sure option to protect that victim is to shoot and possible kill the ax-killer. In this situation, the killing would be justified.

I'll go even further and say that there are situations where executing a person is morally justified. When a murderer cannot be safely restrained and stands a good possibility of hurting another, then killing the individual is morally permissible. If Gadarene, Jeffery Damher, and I are all stranded on a tropical island and Dahmer kills me, Gadarene is justified in killing Damher, even if he could safely and surely subdue Dahmer in the short term. The reason why is that there is no way to maintain that level of safety. He cannot protect himself from Dahmer on a stranded island alone. There are no jails, no safe ways of feeding Dahmer, and no way to ensure Dahmer won't easily kill him later on.

Do you agree with my reasoning that killing is only justifiable in situations where the safety of others is, in a very real way, compromised without killing the wrongdoer in question?

If no, explain.

If yes:

In what instance can an all-powerful and all-knowing being have a justifiable killing, when, in all instances, the being can inhibit the actions others indefinitely through no harmful means? If the only justifiable killing is one where there is no other option, how can a justifiable killing exist for being where there is always another option?

I don't want Bible verses. The Bible has offered me nothing but wasted time, tears, and generic and simplistic platitudes.

I want an intellectual and philosophical response.

If you can't answer my questions, then I have no reason to accept your claims that some of God's genocides were morally justifiable.

I don't know what to say to you at the moment as I'm working on something else if your post was addressed to me, not sure. Perhaps another poster could respond to your questions. Sorry

 

[Gadarene]

I guess what I have to say about the genocide apologist thing is you are entitled to feel that way as a person, but we are strangers and you don't know me nor is it in my nature at all. So I don't know what more to say about that. By the way there are Jews and Christians who feel the same way as I do and they do not advocate or apologize for genocide either.

I am sure they do not think they are engaging in genocide apologetics much as you do not think you are, but that does not mean they are not engaging in it.

I have several books of Enoch from different authors. I want to present it properly as I'm not a scholar. Sorry, I'll have it posted in a little bit.

Fair enough, thanks