God never commited genocide

[MoonLancer]

Now you are back to genocide. In the context of the Old Testament passages, it has already been shown that it is anachronistic and definitionally incorrect to apply the term genocide to them. Since you are still doing so, all I can guess is that you are trying to malign the name of God further and denigrate the faith of Christians.

genoside is commly hid welded by swords of justice. Saying that god is simply erratically sin as if it where cockroach does not absolve god of genocide. Here, hows this God commits Xenocide. better?.... no not really. Oh but he promised he wouldn't do it again right? ahhh that makes me happy. I love god.

If you had paid attention to what I had quoted and responded, you would have seen that that statement was yours and not mine. I was quoting you!

a typo on my part. I realize that is what i said. I was asking about your response to it.

Wow, talk about employing fallacies! Please do not manufacture a false dilemma by putting words into my mouth whether you think I imply them or not. Rather, present an argument that refutes the one I actually put forth.

then how about you dont use Noah as a defense for god judging sin and i wont assume it trys to refute it. A red herring then? Did it have anything to do with the argument?

No, God does not become amoral if he witholds mercy and does not grant it to all. He does not do this by an abritrary process. It is all according to his sovereign plan and will, some of which is revealed in Scripture. He is not obligated to reveal all of his plan to his creation.

I say its arbitrary and you say its not. Where is your evidence.

God declares that it is wrong for man to murder other humans because they are created in God's image. God is spirit and not fleshly; he bestows the image and does not bear it passively. The Potter has every right and control over the clay. But why should you care about any of these things since you have already decided that God does not exist and the Bible is an evil book?

fallacy of special pleading. and your right about the last part.

But again, why should you care to consider this since you will most likely use it as more mud to sling at Christians?

quit handing me mud then. you make it too easy.

Yes it is a fallacy of guilt by association because you are saying that because of God's actions in the Old Testament, Christians are automatically bound to justify mass killing in any context.

in terms of guilt i would put it slightly bellow germans being complacent in ww2

Furthermore, I think you are making the same implicit accusation as 3sigma: because you think Christians use the OT to justify mass killings,

too late. History beat you too it.

As for me, I do not think that I have given any "half quasi answers full of innuendo."

I do. Your answers I not direct. And they are misleading. They do not directly address the questions ether. Case and point someone else has been asking questions of you more then a few times, which you choose to respond to, but never answer.

I guess you have totally ignored the premise of this thread and the definitions that have been given for "genocide." Then again, why should you care since lobbing the term "genocide" around accomplishes the purpose of denigrating the faith of Christians?

Did god kill whole villages knowing his actions would destroy whole peoples with the intention of destroying them? Genoside. the baby complex shows that sin could not possibly be the reason.

Thus, they are acting entirely within their historical nature in what they are doing.

and i guess the Germans where just acting in their historical context in ww2 right?

Also, concerning the relationship between the Israelite prophets and the Babylonians, the following should be pointed out. It is not as if God stirred up the scourge of the Medes suddenly and sent them on the Babylonians unaware. The prophets had continually warned the Babylonians of God's displeasure with their idolatry and wilfull sinful practices. The Babylonians ignored the prophecies and suffered the consequences as a more powerful nation moved in to conquer them.

case and point.

 

[david_x]

It is not, becuse no where did i say This apply to all Christians. I was observing a particular oddity.

Nice try though.

You applied it to the whole group.

Its funny when Christians are faced with a moral dilemma they want to go straight to context, but in other cases when they point their own fingers and condemning others, a simple quote without context is preferred and whatever meaning the ascribed at that moment is said to be gods word and law.

I don't see anything that narrows down what Christians you are talking about.

 

[Tzaousios]

Here, hows this God commits Xenocide. better?.... no not really. Oh but he promised he wouldn't do it again right? ahhh that makes me happy. I love god.

No, it is not "xenocide" either. God did not command the flood or the conquest of Canaan because he was afraid of foreigners. Try again.

Your sarcasm is noted. Like I have been saying all along, none of this matters considering the presuppositions you hold coming into the "debate." Thus, like 3sigma, your sole purpose is to gratify a deep-seated desire to denigrate the faith of Christians and malign the name of their God.

then how about you dont use Noah as a defense for god judging sin and i wont assume it trys to refute it. A red herring then? Did it have anything to do with the argument?

No, God did not choose Noah because he was sinless. Like other Old Testament figures, God acknowledged Noah's faithfulness and revealed to him his purpose in the future covenants and history of Israel. I never implied or stated that Noah was without sin.

I say its arbitrary and you say its not. Where is your evidence.

You have pretty much told me what your purpose is and that you do not care. Why should I go through the trouble? There really is no reason to believe that if I did present evidence you would change your mind and position since your sole purpose is to denigrate the faith of Christians.

fallacy of special pleading. and your right about the last part.

No, it is not special pleading because I have freely acknowledged my presuppositions and that I hold the Bible as being true.

Although the meaning of it is quite sad, I appreciate your candid admission. Hopefully 3sigma will follow your lead and admit it outright as well.

in terms of guilt i would put it slightly bellow germans being complacent in ww2

Ah, so you are making no bones about directly connecting Christians with genocidal Nazis in WW2. Tell me, do you think the same thing about religious Jews who hold the Old Testament to be a divinely inspired text and who were the object of the Nazi genocide?

Thanks for further revelation of your intent in this thread and probably every other one in which you take part.

too late. History beat you too it.

No, actually it did not. The ones who called themselves Christians and selectively chose OT texts to justify mass killings to serve political ends did not take into account covenental history or the universal command of the New Testament. All of these, from the Crusaders, to the Inquisition, to the Puritans had access to these texts and could read that their motives were condemned.

Case and point someone else has been asking questions of you more then a few times, which you choose to respond to, but never answer.

No, I have indicated aspects of position in my posts thus far. I have not answered his questions outright because of the express purpose of his motives and intents. I will not be part of his denigration game. Nevertheless, I have said several times now that I am willing to look at the specific texts in detail. He has rejected these terms because they do not fit his overall motive.

Did god kill whole villages knowing his actions would destroy whole peoples with the intention of destroying them? Genoside.

No, God did not kill groups of people at specific places and times because they were of a certain race and ethnicity. It is not genocide and it is an anachronism to call it such.

and i guess the Germans where just acting in their historical context in ww2 right?

Not JUST acting within their historical contexts. An argument could be made that certain historical circumstances and conditions contributed to them doing what they did. But this does not make them Christians who were acting according to what the Bible teaches. Nor does it make what they did right, obviously.

case and point.

How so? Merely saying "case and point" does not prove or disprove anything. Like a good atheist who prides himself on logic and rationality, apply some critical thinking to what I wrote concerning the text. Then see if you can refute it. But why should you want to since you have already decided that God does not exist, that the Bible is evil, and that the faith of Christians should be denigrated?

 

[sandwiches]

Loaded question. They did not die because of the flood, they died because of their sins and unrepentance.

Are you saying people didn't die from drowning in the flood?

Loaded question. The people hated God, to save mankind (us) from that hell on earth.

Are you saying God had nothing to do with the flood?

Justice is the cause, God simply carried it out. You can't put an executioner up for murder.

Regardless of all your avoiding, this is the key point and you answered it as expected. So, you do believe that God was justified in drowning everyone in a flood of his making. Thanks. That's all you had to say.

 

[MoonLancer]

You applied it to the whole group.



I don't see anything that narrows down what Christians you are talking about.

I can see how it reads both ways. I apologies for the misunderstanding.

It should read something like this

Its funny when i see Christians faced with a moral dilemma and they want to go straight to context, but in other cases when they point their own fingers and condemning others, a simple quote without context is preferred and whatever meaning the ascribed at that moment is said to be gods word and law.


​

 

[david_x]

I can see how it reads both ways. I apologies for the misunderstanding.

It should read something like this

Its funny when i see Christians faced with a moral dilemma and they want to go straight to context, but in other cases when they point their own fingers and condemning others, a simple quote without context is preferred and whatever meaning the ascribed at that moment is said to be gods word and law.


​

It's appreciated.

 

[MoonLancer]

No, it is not "xenocide" either. God did command the flood or the conquest of Canaan because he was afraid of foreigners. Try again.

God caused the flood because of foreigners? oh no foreigners, Kill them all!!!

Your sarcasm is noted. Like I have been saying all along, none of this matters considering the presuppositions you hold coming into the "debate." Thus, like 3sigma, your sole purpose is to gratify a deep-seated desire to denigrate the faith of Christians and malign the name of their God.

and you who cannot walk away due to pride but cannot answer these tough questions due to shame.

No, God did not choose Noah because he was sinless. Like other Old Testament figures, God acknowledged Noah's faithfulness and revealed to him his purpose in the future covenants and history of Israel. I never implied or stated that Noah was without sin.

then why the Frack did you bring it up with regard to god not killing everyone as we are supposedly all sinful. A red herring.

You have pretty much told me what your purpose is and that you do not care. Why should I go through the trouble? There really is no reason to believe that if I did present evidence you would change your mind and position since your sole purpose is to denigrate the faith of Christians.

sure. Lets talk about how i wont accept any evidence when so far no one has presented reasons for genocide that any sane or moral person should accept. Oh wait lets add xenoside to the list. Also i dont think you know what xenoside is because of your comment about foreigners. It has nothing to do with foreigners.

No, it is not special pleading because I have freely acknowledged my presuppositions and that I hold the Bible as being true.

that doesn't stop it from being a fallacy. It just means you don't care its a fallacy. that does not absolve it form being a fallacy.

Although the meaning of it is quite sad, I appreciate your candid admission. Hopefully 3sigma will follow your lead and admit it outright as well.

Why? so you can don't have be troubled with these complicated questions of genocide? The issue wont go away and my motive doesn't change facts.

Ah, so you are making no bones about directly connecting Christians with genocidal Nazis in WW2. Tell me, do you think the same thing about religious Jews who hold the Old Testament to be a divinely inspired text and who were the object of the Nazi genocide?

I said nothing of the sort. Did i use an analogy yes. Did i DIRECTLY connection Christians to nazis? no.

Thanks for further revelation of your intent in this thread and probably every other one in which you take part.

and yours. someone not interested in facts or truth but someone who simply deflects and shields criticisms from points they cannot contest directly. If you cannot entertain the idea that genocide exists in the bible, How will you ever discover if it is or is not in the bible?

No, actually it did not. The ones who called themselves Christians and selectively chose OT texts to justify mass killings to serve political ends did not take into account covenental history or the universal command of the New Testament. All of these, from the Crusaders, to the Inquisition, to the Puritans had access to these texts and could read that their motives were condemned.

too bad this was mainstream at the time. It is secular reason and secular paradigm shifts that allow you to read the bible with rose tinted glasses of love and justice for all. History is much more grim.

No, I have indicated aspects of position in my posts thus far. I have not answered his questions outright because of the express purpose of his motives and intents. I will not be part of his denigration game. Nevertheless, I have said several times now that I am willing to look at the specific texts in detail. He has rejected these terms because they do not fit his overall motive.

and i have said i am willing to look at specific texts yet here we are.

No, God did not kill groups of people at specific places and times because they were of a certain race and ethnicity. It is not genocide and it is an anachronism to call it such.

Genocide is not as black and white as that.There is no way god to kill all those peoples and claim they were all sinners (the baby complex). So we return to god the baby killer. lovely. It illustrates that clearly of god killed whole peoples, sin was not the issue, as babies are undeserving of such action. So sin cannot be an excuse genocide.

Not JUST acting within their historical contexts. An argument could be made that certain historical circumstances and conditions contributed to them doing what they did. But this does not make them Christians who were acting according to what the Bible teaches. Nor does it make what they did right, obviously.

There must have been a really big gap in history where no Christians existed then.

How so? Merely saying "case and point" does not prove or disprove anything. Like a good atheist who prides himself on logic and rationality, apply some critical thinking to what I wrote concerning the text. Then see if you can refute it. But why should you want to since you have already decided that God does not exist, that the Bible is evil, and that the faith of Christians should be denigrated?

If i stopped using critical thinking i WOULD believe in god. Faith, that all you have. There is no critical thinking in faith. Choosing beliefs based on Critical thinking leads one to be an agnostic, atheist and diest. Of course people can be critical thinkers and beliave in god, but they must compartmentalize

 

[b&wpac4]

I’m curious to know how religious believers arrive at the conclusion that their religious beliefs are true. From the evasive and waffling responses I receive, it appears to be based on nothing more than purely subjective feelings unsupported by any sound evidence. It is as though you believe things are as you imagine them to be rather than as they are.

I've already pointed out that the beginning of my evidence is the survival of the Jewish people. You will, naturally, say it is coincidence or chance, but it's enough for me to begin.

I care about this because the religious beliefs of others do affect me and many other people around the world by causing unnecessary harm. Religious beliefs affect people’s behaviour. I’ve given numerous examples of the harmful behaviour caused by religious beliefs in previous posts. You only need to look at the sectarian violence in the world today to see the harm, but there are plenty of other examples as well.

It also motivates people to give to charity, or help the poor, or work to better themselves. You focus on the negative because you already have your conclusion. The way you operate is, to quote Jacob ben Wolf Kranz, like this:
"Once I was walking in the forest, and saw tree after tree with a target drawn on it, and at the center of each target an arrow. I then came upon a little boy with a bow in his hand. "Are you the one who shot all these arrows", I asked. "Yes!" he replied. "Then how did you always hit the center of the target?" I asked. "Simple", said the boy, "first I shoot the arrow, then I draw the target"."

 

[Tzaousios]

God caused the flood because of foreigners? oh no foreigners, Kill them all!!!

Haha...I am sure you would have liked for me to have said this. Please notice that I edited that specific remark precisely because I had forgotten the NOT.

and you who cannot walk away due to pride but cannot answer these tough questions due to shame.

Nope. Neither one is the case. For the former comment I enjoy "debating" about the Old Testament with anyone, whether they are atheists or Christians. For the latter comment, as I have said many times already, it would be ridiculous for me to play along in the denigration game when when 3sigma's and your intentions have been made quite clear.

then why the Frack did you bring it up with regard to god not killing everyone as we are supposedly all sinful.

I am not sure which post your are talking about. Please quote it for all of our reference. Perhaps you are referring to my discussion with HannahBanana?

Oh wait lets add xenoside to the list. Also i dont think you know what xenoside is because of your comment about foreigners. It has nothing to do with foreigners.

Alright. Since you are such a logical and rational thinker, it would be good if you defined your terms and said how you are using them beforehand. That way you won't get caught in the conundrum of assuming that what happened in the OT is a "genocide" because God singled out groups for their race and ethnicity.

Since the Greek word xenos means "foreigner" or "guest," that is what I thought you were referring to: the killing of foreigners.

that doesn't stop it from being a fallacy. It just means you don't care its a fallacy. that does not absolve it form being a fallacy.

Fine then. Tell me how what I have said is a fallacy of "special pleading" in the context of this discussion and the presuppositions to which I hold.

Why? so you can don't have be troubled with these complicated questions of genocide? The issue wont go away and my motive doesn't change facts.

I have had no trouble and have explained why. You and 3sigma, on the other hand, are not interested in any real "discussion" or "debate" because you are already entirely decided that there is no God and the Bible is evil. Thus, your only purpose is to come in here and satisfy your desire to denigrate the faith of Christians under the guise of "discussion" and "debate."

I said nothing of the sort. Did i use an analogy yes. Did i DIRECTLY connection Christians to nazis? no.

Well, you could have fooled me. Fine, if you are absolving yourself of the charge of making a direct connection, are you also repudiating that you desired subtly to link the two by means of intimation, suggestion, and implication?

If you cannot entertain the idea that genocide exists in the bible, How will you ever discover if it is or is not in the bible?

Because, according to the definition of genocide, it was not committed or commanded by God in the Bible. It is a term that you and 3sigma are throwing around to denigrate Christian faith and malign the name of their God.

Now, if you think God committed or commanded the mass killings of people because of their race and ethnicity, please point out where and be specific. The burden of proof is on you. But why should you want to do this since you are not interested in substance but denigration?

too bad this was mainstream at the time. It is secular reason and secular paradigm shifts that allow you to read the bible with rose tinted glasses of love and justice for all. History is much more grim.

What do you mean by "mainstream" and how does that refute my argument? I admitted as much in my post. History is quite grim and I am not denying this. Nor do I think admission of such refutes my argument.

What do you mean by "secular reason" and "secular paradigm shifts"? I do not see how these accusations apply and refute my argument. It seems you are lobbing epithets and grasping at straws because you cannot deal with my argument.

and i have said i am willing to look at specific texts yet here we are.

Alright. We have looked at Isaiah 13, which in answering my argument you have fumbled around and basically ignored for whatever reason. Post your next prooftext or critical evaluation of the text. The latter is more preferable if we are to go about this in a rational and logical manner.

Genocide is not as black and white as that.There is no way god to kill all those peoples and claim they were all sinners (the baby complex). So we return to god the baby killer. lovely. It illustrates that clearly of god killed whole peoples, sin was not the issue, as babies are undeserving of such action. So sin cannot be an excuse genocide.

No, but it does indicate yours and 3sigma's predeliction for redefining or changing terms to suit your denigration game.

If your response here does not indicate the emotionalized, hysterics-filled comeback that always uses the "baby-killing" trope as its basis, I do not know what does.

There must have been a really big gap in history where no Christians existed then.

That was a very weak rebuttal. In your quote you cleverly omitted the spread of history I mentioned in the Crusades, Inquisition, and Puritan witch burnings.

If i stopped using critical thinking i WOULD believe in god.

HA! Talk about red herrings and ad hominems!

Faith, that all you have. There is no critical thinking in faith.

Merely your opinion and nothing more. This comment suits your denigration game of Christian faith perfectly.

Choosing beliefs based on Critical thinking leads one to be an agnostic, atheist and diest.

Wow, this is a bigtime over simplification and generalization! Since when is faith and religious belief supposed to be or required to be reproduced using test tubes and bunson burners? The so-called "Enlightenment" tried this methodology and look where it lead. Not a progressive, scientific utopia but the horrors of early modern statism, WWI, and even WW2.

Of course people can be critical thinkers and beliave in god, but they must compartmentalize

What? This totally compromises and contradicts everything you just unloaded about the supposed irrationality and anti-scientism of religious believers.

 

[levi501]

Someone got utterly owned by Moonlancer in this thread... but I won't mention any names.

 

[Tzaousios]

Someone got utterly owned by Moonlancer in this thread... but I won't mention any names.

Way to circle the wagons!

Care to offer any of your own ownage?

 

[3sigma]

But I must point out that once again you are creating a false dilemma. How does the Biblical account of mass killings in the OT make them "a part of Christian beliefs"? It seems you are toeing the line here in suggesting, intimating, and implying that because mass killings are described in the OT, Christians justify them in all contexts and will use it as a pretext to commit mass killings today.

What, the OT isn’t part of Christian beliefs? That’s probably news to many of the Christians here.

I’m not suggesting that Christians will engage in mass killings today. I’m noting that they tend to excuse and justify slaughters, which is a moral stance I find repugnant.

Also, the people were not slaughtered as if they were irrational beasts without regard to their personhood.

As I showed you before, slaughter means killing large numbers of people. I’d say killing everyone on the entire planet except for one family is killing a large number of people and qualifies as a slaughter, a massacre and genocide as well. Let’s just call it what it was, shall we. It was slaughter.

But what have we here? Again, you evaded the questions about what you think of the slaughter. Given that your God did allegedly slaughter children, what do you think of that? Do you think it is acceptable or justified? I certainly don’t, but what do you think?

Of course, you are permitted to have an opinion on both morality and the contents of the text (although you are merely alluding to texts rather than considering them in detail). Your opinion that it is immoral and unjustified is noted.
…
How do you know that the Bible does not provide any "real justification" for it since all you have done is vaguely alluded to the texts or thrown up a few prooftexts without any critical evaluation?

Why do you constantly evade the question whenever I ask you whether you think the slaughter was justified, yet, at the same time, argue against the notion that the slaughter was unjustified? It appears that you do think the slaughter was justified, but you are unwilling to admit that, for obvious reasons.

Secondly, please show me in the Bible where it is taught that because God commanded these things to be done in the Old Testament at a specific time and place, it is justifiable and acceptable for human beings to do those same things at any time and in any place?

I provided examples of your God commanding slaughters in the other thread (now deleted), but shinbits included them here in post #3.

Here are some passages teaching that your God is just and perfect.

DEUT 32:4 [He is] the Rock, his work [is] perfect: for all his ways [are] judgment: a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right [is] he.

PS 18:30 [As for] God, his way [is] perfect: the word of the LORD is tried: he [is] a buckler to all those that trust in him.

Read Samuel 15 to see how displeased Samuel was that Saul didn’t obey the LORD’s command to kill all the animals, thus teaching that if your God commands something, you had better obey.

As I said, the Bible teaches that your God commands slaughters and also claims that your God is perfect and just and must be obeyed. Christians take on these teachings. People could slaughter others today if they thought that it was acceptable, justified and their God had commanded them to do it. In fact, “God made me do it” has been used as an excuse before now.

 

[3sigma]

I've already pointed out that the beginning of my evidence is the survival of the Jewish people.

Right… There’s some powerful evidence. Who would have thought that a people existing in more than two dozen countries could possibly survive?

You focus on the negative because you already have your conclusion.

No, I focus on the intolerance, cruelty and violence due to religious beliefs because it causes unnecessary harm. It adversely affects many people around the world.

You evaded my previous [post=53636399]questions[/post] by asking a [post=53636853]question[/post] in return. I expected you to answer my questions after I answered yours, but you continue to evade them. On what do the sages and rabbis base their conclusions about which stories are true and which are not true? Is it just their unsupported opinions based on nothing more than the words in their religious books?

 

[Tzaousios]

What, the OT isn’t part of Christian beliefs? That’s probably news to many of the Christians here.

Please, stop creating false dilemmas. What I meant was that because God commanded the Israelites to kill people at a certain place and time in the Old Testament does not mean it is a component of Christian belief to kill people at certain places and times. I think you understood this but nevertheless were creating a false dilemma to aid in your denigration game.

I’m not suggesting that Christians will engage in mass killings today. I’m noting that they tend to excuse and justify slaughters, which is a moral stance I find repugnant.

Thank you for coming clean that you are neither accusing outright or suggesting that Christians will engage in mass killings today. Although it constitutes a change in your former practice, which was to suggest, intimate, and hint that Christians would do this because they justify the OT account, I no longer expect to see you employ this tactic.

As I showed you before, slaughter means killing large numbers of people. I’d say killing everyone on the entire planet except for one family is killing a large number of people and qualifies as a slaughter, a massacre and genocide as well. Let’s just call it what it was, shall we. It was slaughter.

Alright, your choice of words is noted.

Why do you constantly evade the question whenever I ask you whether you think the slaughter was justified, yet, at the same time, argue against the notion that the slaughter was unjustified? It appears that you do think the slaughter was justified, but you are unwilling to admit that, for obvious reasons.

I told you the manner in which I am willing to discuss my position. It is in a careful and critical evaluation of the texts. However, despite any pontifications about you being a reasonable and rational atheist, you have refused to examine the passages in detail. Rather, you want me to give you a supposedly "simple" answer, with which you will proceed to make all sorts of generalizations and deductions to aid in your desire to denigrate the faith of Christians.

I provided examples of your God commanding slaughters in the other thread (now deleted), but shinbits included them here in post #3.

Well, this does not help the "discussion" if it resides in a deleted thread and I am not currently replying to shinbits. I refuse to do your work for you.

Here are some passages teaching that your God is just and perfect.

DEUT 32:4 [He is] the Rock, his work [is] perfect: for all his ways [are] judgment: a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right [is] he.

PS 18:30 [As for] God, his way [is] perfect: the word of the LORD is tried: he [is] a buckler to all those that trust in him.

No problem here.

Read Samuel 15 to see how displeased Samuel was that Saul didn’t obey the LORD’s command to kill all the animals, thus teaching that if your God commands something, you had better obey.

Wow, I am surprised that you, being a strictly rational and logical atheist, would throw up this same tired, old trope. Not to mention that it is an anachronistic and deductive fallacy.

Also, I thought you had repented of this tactic as suggested in your comments above? No, because God commanded Saul to kill some animals, or the Israelites to kill the Canaanites, does not mean that Christians are constrained to kill people by divine command. Not only does this accusation fail to understand the Christian understanding of covenental theology, but it also ignores the universal command issued by Christ and reaffirmed by the apostles Paul and John.

As I said, the Bible teaches that your God commands slaughters and also claims that your God is perfect and just and must be obeyed. Christians take on these teachings. People could slaughter others today if they thought that it was acceptable, justified and their God had commanded them to do it. In fact, “God made me do it” has been used as an excuse before now.

Very interesting and telling. So now, in the same post no less, you are reneging on your statement that you are not outright accusing or suggesting that Christians will commit mass killings because they believe in the inspiration of the OT.

Observing your practice, how is one not to think that your sole purpose is to gratify a deep-seated desire to denigrate the faith of Christians?

 

[b&wpac4]

On what do the sages and rabbis base their conclusions about which stories are true and which are not true? Is it just their unsupported opinions based on nothing more than the words in their religious books?

The rulings of previous generations, the exposure to new evidence, close scrutiny to the meaning of the texts, social awareness, etc.

I'll also point out that it is not, generally speaking, a religion of dogma. There are many rabbis who disagree with each other and that's considered just fine.

 

[3sigma]

Observing your practice, how is one not to think that your sole purpose is to gratify a deep-seated desire to denigrate the faith of Christians?

Any faith that reveres a God that would slaughter children and command others to do the same speaks for itself.

 

[Tzaousios]

Any faith that reveres a God that would slaughter children and command others to do the same speaks for itself.

Well, I see that your replies have been reduced to broken-record responses. Have you tired of the game already?

Now, if you are serious, we can critically examine the texts. What are you afraid of if your "argument" is so ironclad?

Also, what do you have to say about an understanding of covenental theology and the universal command given by Christ in the New Testament?

 

[b&wpac4]

Also, what do you have to say about an understanding of covenental theology and the universal command given by Christ in the New Testament?

The universal command of love your neighbor as yourself? That's from Leviticus, you know?

 

[lawtonfogle]

Any faith that reveres a God that would slaughter children and command others to do the same speaks for itself.

So my question is this, is there a situation, any situation you can comprehend, where the slaughter of children can be justified? While emotionally I want to say no, something in the back of my mind says that says otherwise. To quote a famous line from a famous movie, "Only a Sith deals in absolutes."




(Granted, anyone who says that statement is admitting to be a Sith.

 

[david_x]

Any faith that reveres a God that would slaughter children and command others to do the same speaks for itself.

Not if that God is truly just. If He is Just then the execution was justified.

You can only assume that they were innocent.