Well, I'm sorry that you don't see any relevance in it. Of course, from where I'm sitting, it's difficult for me to know just how much of post #21 (and #19) you actually engaged and learned from in order to bring into your overall matrix of considerations.
This is the comment of yours I was questioning:
It's a mistake to foist modern criteria by which we think we're ethically evaluating Hitler and then reapply that to the Bible.
Posts #19 and #21 detail sources for understanding contemporary views on anti-semitism, coupled with a summary of how you would approach a considered answer to the OP. Interesting, but none of it establishing why your statement should be considered valid, or even plausible.
You could probably start by beginning more cordially with me than simply showing up and throwing a flat-out "Why?"
In my book short questions are more polite than long rambling ones. Be aware that question was orginally five or six sentences long. In that earlier version I offered my views of why you might have said what you said and offered counterpoints. It was messy and I had no confidence I hadn't entirely missed your reasoning. A simple "why" matched the sense of my enquiry and afforded you no restriction on how you answered.
, followed up by a rhetorical question posed to me, phrased in a derogatory fashion (as recaptured below)
You may consider it derogatory. I consider it honest and direct. This is the apologetics section. I have no wish to deceive other members as to my views. To convey my position without triggering your sensitivities would have taken ten times as many words. That would offend my sense of right behaviour.
These are your words: "And if you have your own 'notions' of ethics by which you want evaluate Hitler's monstrosities, then by all means apply those notions."
Grammatically and lexically that is giving permission.
Perhaps you can back up, start from the beginning, come back through the front door and, rather than bringing a bunch of misconceptions with you, leave those at the door.
My "Why" was specifically designed to avoid misconceptions. You provided an answer I found unconvincing. I made you aware of that and explained why. The next step in a productive dialogue involves you addressing my observations in an explanatory manner. I can wait.
Oh, and one more thing: when you come back through the door, alleviate yourself of the additional notion that you're just going to "show up" and roll me.
I have no idea what that means, but whatever issues you think you have with me please drop them and address the issues.
A thank you at the end of post in which you have made a number of personal remarks comes across as insincere. I prefer you stop that.