Opposing Views: Sick of Hearing Christians Claim "Religious Discrimination"

[Crystal Shards]

One word: sin. Of course, one might debate "if God is all powerful, why does his creation sin". He gave us free will. When he created life, he wanted life, not robots. Satan, a former angel, deceived us to sin, and we listened. Hell was meant for Satan and his angels, and unfortunately, without Christ, we are one of Satan's angels. God does know of our suffering, and he wants us to repent, so it can be alleviated. Giving us free will, however, he's not just going to make us do it automatically. He wants the repentance to be genuine. It's not all a matter of him want us to recklessly believe him, he's the only one that can take away our pains. He wants us to acknowledge our problems.

Um, God could have made the earth without the whole Forbidden Fruit business. It's actually quite possible to think up a world where Original Sin didn't happen. And you seriously expect me to believe that I'm supposed to repent for something two people did thousands (millions if you're an evolutionist) of years before even my great-great-great-great-great-great-great grandparents were conceived? That's bullshit. No omni-benevolent God would place something like the Forbidden Fruit in the Garden of Eden (and of course he knew Adam and Eve would eat the fruit, as he's omniscient, right?) and then turn around and say he loves us. He's all-powerful, right? So it's not like he was required to have things play out that way. He could have put our asses on our heads for all we know.

Face it: we wouldn't have these problems if he wasn't an asshole to begin with.

That's if you even believe in the Bible.

Edited June 8, 2010 by Crystal Shards

[Phoenix Wright]

Well, Satan's every bit a spirit as God is. You can't kill the spirit. Our bodies die, but our spirits don't.

From all those Christian stories I've been told: That's false. In Revelations it says that Satan's army will be "swallowed" by God's, and Satan will be DESTROYED.

Also, saying God can't kill something is contradictory to everything you define Him as.

[Esau of Isaac]

For Jericho, it was the whole "land was planned for them". Yes, the soldiers did the killing, which goes along with my "it was war" explanation. I can imagine that war back then wasn't that pleasant to the losers no matter the army. Yeah, why the children and women were killed, I'm not even sure, though I think it had to do with preventing vengeance. A matter of kill or be killed. If the Israelites had lost, I imagine the exact same thing would happen to them, or otherwise would be enslaved to the victors (which happened many times to them, by the way). Keep in mind, if you think that its contradicting "Thou shall not murder", don't forget that the Bible doesn't use murder and killing hand and hand. Executions of deserving criminals and war casualties do not line up with murder, according to the Bible.

No man, I can totally agree with that. This was just war, they were just instructed by their God to commit genocide. Like seven different times at various places. This wasn't because they weren't his followers, it obviously had nothing to do with religion, and it wasn't people doing the punishing, it was God...

...Are you being serious right now?

Yes, it was a matter of war, in this case, a war to get the Israelites land. Yeah, the enemies didn't worship God, but that wasn't the main point of the conquest. God promised to give Abraham a great nation, and unfortunately for the people occupying what would be his nation, they were in that land.

Of course. Rather than God --being God-- simply poof more land into existence, it was more preferable to...commit genocide on the people that had been there first. To slaughter them utterly and steal their homes.

I'm pretty sure that there wasn't any unoccupied land on Earth at the time, except obviously Antarctica,

Hahahahaha what?

so creating a new country unfortunately meant taking it from somebody. Obviously, no country gives away their country willingly, so the results of what would happen was obvious. Naturally nothing nice or friendly, but something that was necessary. War is never pleasant regardless of the time, but its one of the realities that will probably never go away. We view God as a God of reality, not one of sensationalism or political correctness.

Congratulations, you just justified the most barbaric, inhumane action a civilization of people can possibly perform.

As far as the third statement goes, Jesus, if you are to believe the Bible, did concrete things to prove his worthiness. It's not like people just suddenly jumped in like opportunists. And the unfairness of the suffering all lies in whether you believe God or not. According to the Bible, NONE of us are righteous, all sinners, children of Satan. By ourselves, reaching God is impossible. Yes, definitely nothing we as people would like to hear. However, if you are to believe God's existence, that's the reality of it. Of course, the whole "all are sinners" concept is probably a major thing that repels people, so I can understand why people are reluctant to trust the Bible. The Bible is not a feel good, warm, or fluffy book that tells people what they want to hear. It's meant to tell what the people need to hear.

Who gives a shit if Jesus supposedly proved himself godly thousands of years ago? That's what every single other religion says relative to their belief structures and prophets. The fact of the matter is that there is no evidence to lend credence to Christianity's claims, and thus it is a total mistake on God's part logically to allow everyone to default to hell for simply not believing in him.

As far as the last thing goes, such things would ultimately lose its flavor. Heaven is described as a place where nothing gets old, boring, and so forth. Naturally, something beyond our way of thinking.

Fighting with Bruce Lee and Son Goku while having sex with Megan Fox and listening to ACDC and Black Sabbath battle each other with rock is beyond anything your God could create, mortal. It would never get old.

NOW BEND KNEE AND WORSHIP GOD DAMNIT.

Of course, those who don't believe in God will think that what is said is simply crazy, but it's what it is. I'm not going to be the one to hide behind a curtain that says God is all fluffy and bright. Yes, God has compassion, but then there is wrath. The problem I personally think is that a lot of churches try to stick on the pleasant side of God and completely neglect telling why he is so merciful, what he's keeping us from.

What is he keeping us from? What is compassionate about your God, when being the embodiment of Good, he has probably done so many worse things than any murderer could aspire to? If I had been the one encouraging a people to commit genocide upon half a dozen peoples when I could save the trouble with the push of a button, you'd undeniably view me as a horrible. Yet your God is above reproach, and all that he does is instantaneously to be accepted.

If your God weren't omnipotent, would you still worship him? If you could have your Heaven without swearing yourself to him, would you still follow him? Would you do anything God commanded you, simply because he's the one with all the power, or because of some other reason? Because if he were a person, I doubt I'd like him much.

One word: sin. Of course, one might debate "if God is all powerful, why does his creation sin". He gave us free will. When he created life, he wanted life, not robots. Satan, a former angel, deceived us to sin, and we listened. Hell was meant for Satan and his angels, and unfortunately, without Christ, we are one of Satan's angels. God does know of our suffering, and he wants us to repent, so it can be alleviated. Giving us free will, however, he's not just going to make us do it automatically. He wants the repentance to be genuine. It's not all a matter of him want us to recklessly believe him, he's the only one that can take away our pains. He wants us to acknowledge our problems.

So why couldn't he make free will and perfect good coincide? I thought God was omnipotent, so shouldn't he be able to make all people have free will and also always pick the good option? This is of course me even entertaining the idea of free will, which I think is a fairly large crock of shit. Human life is a biological machine. We behave in like ways to various events. If we have free will now, there would be no difference if God were to make it such that human biology dictates we do what he would find agreeable.

There is no possible means by which omnipotency and omnibenevolence taken together can cause sadness to exist, as with omnipotence one could simply fix whatever could possibly be the problem. You cannot think up any explanation that cannot be explained away by your God's assumed ultimate strength. Thus, the only possible answer is that God wants it to happen this specific way, and finds that suffering is fine, and agreeable. Pretty fucked up.

Well, Satan's every bit a spirit as God is. You can't kill the spirit. Our bodies die, but our spirits don't.

So what are your thoughts on Gehenna's unquenchable fire that destroys mens' souls? That's of course entertaining your laughable position that God was simply unable to destroy Lucifer. Like, are you being serious here? God, the One Creator of All That Is, not being able to destroy one measly creation's existence? That's a laugh.

Edited June 9, 2010 by Esau of Isaac

[Life]

Holy fucking shit, is this really Christianity? Man, you guys are way more fucked up than us Jews.

Couple things that I do want to comment on just because I know the Torah ("Old Testament" to you guys) a hell of a lot better than probably all of you. Mostly because I've studied it for about 12 years while you guys tend to worry about JC.

For Jericho, it was the whole "land was planned for them". Yes, the soldiers did the killing, which goes along with my "it was war" explanation. I can imagine that war back then wasn't that pleasant to the losers no matter the army. Yeah, why the children and women were killed, I'm not even sure, though I think it had to do with preventing vengeance. A matter of kill or be killed. If the Israelites had lost, I imagine the exact same thing would happen to them, or otherwise would be enslaved to the victors (which happened many times to them, by the way). Keep in mind, if you think that its contradicting "Thou shall not murder", don't forget that the Bible doesn't use murder and killing hand and hand. Executions of deserving criminals and war casualties do not line up with murder, according to the Bible.

No man, I can totally agree with that. This was just war, they were just instructed by their God to commit genocide. Like seven different times at various places. This wasn't because they weren't his followers, it obviously had nothing to do with religion, and it wasn't people doing the punishing, it was God...

...Are you being serious right now?

For the most part, yes to Kintembo. War is war and people die. Esau, get over it. Whatever the reasons are, people die in war. I'm sorry if you don't like it but the world isn't full of unicorns and rainbows.

And yeah, I'm not going to sugarcoat this next line. Hashem (God) told Joshua to eliminate all the tribes living in Cana'an at the time. Call it mass genocide if you will. Guilty as charged. Mind you, we fucked it up like we always do and paid a real hefty price (just read Judges if you don't believe me).

However, I'm just going to add to the last little bit of Kin's response. Murder and execution are two different things. There are multiple laws in the Torah that carry a punishment of death. My personal favourite example is "makeh ish vamet mot yumat" which translates into "if you hit a man so that he dies, you shall die too". We have another law against killing ("lo tir'tzach - Do not kill"). You could infer some sort of contradiction here but the idea is that when death is punishment for a suitable crime, it's not murder.

Yes, it was a matter of war, in this case, a war to get the Israelites land. Yeah, the enemies didn't worship God, but that wasn't the main point of the conquest. God promised to give Abraham a great nation, and unfortunately for the people occupying what would be his nation, they were in that land. I'm pretty sure that there wasn't any unoccupied land on Earth at the time, except obviously Antarctica, so creating a new country unfortunately meant taking it from somebody. Obviously, no country gives away their country willingly, so the results of what would happen was obvious. Naturally nothing nice or friendly, but something that was necessary. War is never pleasant regardless of the time, but its one of the realities that will probably never go away. We view God as a God of reality, not one of sensationalism or political correctness.

Of course. Rather than God --being God-- simply poof more land into existence, it was more preferable to...commit genocide on the people that had been there first. To slaughter them utterly and steal their homes.

Hahahahaha what?

Congratulations, you just justified the most barbaric, inhumane action a civilization of people can possibly perform.

Not really. See, you're forgetting the importance of that specific little strip of land. It was where Avraham, Yitzchak and Ya'akov (Abraham, Isaac and Jacob) lived. Avraham made a deal with Hashem there. All three met with angels in that land and Ya'akov had his name changed to Yisrael (Israel, hence where the name Children of Israel came from) there. Yitzchak and Ya'akov were both born there. It really didn't matter if Hashem "poofed more land" into existence because he promised us that specific place.

Aside from that, screw the JC stuff since I personally don't really care for it. It's interesting to read since this is where Christianity and Judaism split away from each other in a huge way but I also find points of it absurd just because I've grown up Jewish and some ideas just sound... yeah.

[Defeatist Elitist]

Holy fucking shit, is this really Christianity? Man, you guys are way more fucked up than us Jews.

Couple things that I do want to comment on just because I know the Torah ("Old Testament" to you guys) a hell of a lot better than probably all of you. Mostly because I've studied it for about 12 years while you guys tend to worry about JC.

For the most part, yes to Kintembo. War is war and people die. Esau, get over it. Whatever the reasons are, people die in war. I'm sorry if you don't like it but the world isn't full of unicorns and rainbows.

Wait, what? So you're saying it's okay to slaughter noncombatants because its war? Really? Really? Because we have rules against that shit you know. Is this actually your argument, because I'm kind of in disbelief.

And yeah, I'm not going to sugarcoat this next line. Hashem (God) told Joshua to eliminate all the tribes living in Cana'an at the time. Call it mass genocide if you will. Guilty as charged. Mind you, we fucked it up like we always do and paid a real hefty price (just read Judges if you don't believe me).

Yeah...

Not really. See, you're forgetting the importance of that specific little strip of land. It was where Avraham, Yitzchak and Ya'akov (Abraham, Isaac and Jacob) lived. Avraham made a deal with Hashem there. All three met with angels in that land and Ya'akov had his name changed to Yisrael (Israel, hence where the name Children of Israel came from) there. Yitzchak and Ya'akov were both born there. It really didn't matter if Hashem "poofed more land" into existence because he promised us that specific place.

Okay. So couldn't he poofed some more land into existence and had the other people go there? Fuck, couldn't he have just prevented people from moving there? He's goddamn all powerful, this shouldn't present much of a problem to him.

[Crystal Shards]

Holy fucking shit, is this really Christianity? Man, you guys are way more fucked up than us Jews.

Hashem (God) told Joshua to eliminate all the tribes living in Cana'an at the time. Call it mass genocide if you will. Guilty as charged. Mind you, we fucked it up like we always do and paid a real hefty price (just read Judges if you don't believe me).

So basically you're saying, "Hello Kettle, this is Pot speaking. I just wanted to let you know that you're black."

[Life]

Wait, what? So you're saying it's okay to slaughter noncombatants because its war? Really? Really? Because we have rules against that shit you know. Is this actually your argument, because I'm kind of in disbelief.

We have rules for this NOW but back when the winners wrote history? Be serious.

So we should be condemning them for doing what everyone else did (you know, the Crusades kinda stick in my mind) while everyone else did it? Back in the olden days before we had partially useless organizations before the UN (hell, why don't we say at least 500 years ago), conquering armies would slaughter all civilians in a town as an example of what everyone else should not do. Attila the Hun was notorious for such acts. He'd walk in to a village, kill everyone and then tell the next town to pay up so that their town wouldn't be destroyed like the first one.

I can't tell if your comment is a joke since you haven't looked at the context of the times. This shit was NORMAL back then.

Okay. So couldn't he poofed some more land into existence and had the other people go there? Fuck, couldn't he have just prevented people from moving there? He's goddamn all powerful, this shouldn't present much of a problem to him.

I already provided reasons for why adding more land wouldn't have made a difference. Try reading next time.

It wasn't just any land. The Children of Israel were promised that specific land. It's the same reason why Israel isn't in Uganda right now.

So basically you're saying, "Hello Kettle, this is Pot speaking. I just wanted to let you know that you're black."

Not really. I was actually referring to all the devil and hell and Lucy shit that was mentioned earlier. It seems to go against a fundamental rule that you have (and that we actually share).

Edited June 10, 2010 by Life

[Crystal Shards]

We have rules for this NOW but back when the winners wrote history? Be serious.

So we should be condemning them for doing what everyone else did (you know, the Crusades kinda stick in my mind) while everyone else did it? Back in the olden days before we had partially useless organizations before the UN (hell, why don't we say at least 500 years ago), conquering armies would slaughter all civilians in a town as an example of what everyone else should not do. Attila the Hun was notorious for such acts. He'd walk in to a village, kill everyone and then tell the next town to pay up so that their town wouldn't be destroyed like the first one.

I can't tell if your comment is a joke since you haven't looked at the context of the times. This shit was NORMAL back then.

Just because everyone's doing it doesn't make it okay. I believe that's called an appeal to majority, which is a logical fallacy.

I already provided reasons for why adding more land wouldn't have made a difference. Try reading next time.

It wasn't just any land. The Children of Israel were promised that specific land. It's the same reason why Israel isn't in Uganda right now.

Except it WAS just any land. God could have made even more special land to promise to people, or he could have picked somewhere that wasn't occupied by anyone. Just because he didn't make it that way doesn't mean that he didn't have other options.

Not really. I was actually referring to all the devil and hell and Lucy shit that was mentioned earlier. It seems to go against a fundamental rule that you have (and that we actually share).

Not following.

[Defeatist Elitist]

We have rules for this NOW but back when the winners wrote history? Be serious.

So we should be condemning them for doing what everyone else did (you know, the Crusades kinda stick in my mind) while everyone else did it? Back in the olden days before we had partially useless organizations before the UN (hell, why don't we say at least 500 years ago), conquering armies would slaughter all civilians in a town as an example of what everyone else should not do. Attila the Hun was notorious for such acts. He'd walk in to a village, kill everyone and then tell the next town to pay up so that their town wouldn't be destroyed like the first one.

I can't tell if your comment is a joke since you haven't looked at the context of the times. This shit was NORMAL back then.

Okay. The point isn't that it didn't happen a lot back then, the point was that God fucking ENCOURAGED them to do it. He's supposed to be a goddamn omnibenevolent being. It doesn't matter that everyone else did it (and continued to do it for years), it doesn't really make it better, and most of all, he's God, you'd think he could have a better solution.

I already provided reasons for why adding more land wouldn't have made a difference. Try reading next time.

I said that he should have poofed some land in for the OTHER people. Try reading next time.

It wasn't just any land. The Children of Israel were promised that specific land. It's the same reason why Israel isn't in Uganda right now.

Maybe he should have put in some giant glowing signs or something, shit like "Don't go here or I'll encourage my chosen people to slaughter every one of you, yours Truly God". I mean, he's omniscient, he should have seen it coming.

[Life]

Just because everyone's doing it doesn't make it okay. I believe that's called an appeal to majority, which is a logical fallacy.

And yet we should only hold one group of people accountable for doing this? I believe that's called hypocrisy. You can either vilify everyone for the same action or none of them. Don't pick and choose.

Except it WAS just any land. God could have made even more special land to promise to people, or he could have picked somewhere that wasn't occupied by anyone. Just because he didn't make it that way doesn't mean that he didn't have other options.

But it WAS that specific little strip of land. Here are some quotes about it.

¹Hashem said to Abram, "Go for yourself from your land, from your birthplace, and from your father's house to the land that I will show you." - Breishit (Genesis) Chapter 12

¹⁴Hashem said to Abram after Lot had parted from him, "Raise now your eyes and look out from where you are: northward, southward, eastward and westward. ¹⁵For all the land that you see, to you will I give it, and to your descendants forever. ¹⁶I will make your offspring as the dust of the earth so that if one can count the dust of the earth, then your offspring, too, can be count. ¹⁷Arise, walk about the land through its length and breadth! For to you will I give it." - Breishit Chapter 13

⁷"I will uphold My covenant between Me and you and your offspring after you, throughout their generations, as an everlasting covenant, to be a God to you and to your offspring after you; ⁸and I will give to you and to your offspring after you the land of your sojourns - the whole of the land of Canaan - as an everlasting possession; and I shall be a God to them." - Breishit Chapter 17

I'm not even fucking trying here when looking for these quotes. These are all from the same portion of the Torah (this one is called Lech Lecha) that we read weekly. I still have another 11 portions in this specific book and then four other books to go through after that. If you want to argue about whether it was right for Hashem to promise land and make people kill for it, go ahead. But don't insult me by saying that it's like any other strip of land. Because it's not. To us Jews, this area is special and holy. It was given to us by Hashem and it is mentioned multiple times within the same basic passage at the very least.

Okay. The point isn't that it didn't happen a lot back then, the point was that God fucking ENCOURAGED them to do it. He's supposed to be a goddamn omnibenevolent being. It doesn't matter that everyone else did it (and continued to do it for years), it doesn't really make it better, and most of all, he's God, you'd think he could have a better solution.

Maybe, maybe not. I don't have any clue what Big Guns Upstairs is thinking and what his plans are. If you think it's unfair, too bad. Life's unfair. Especially when you're Jewish but you learn to deal with it and make the most out of it, not bitch to high heavens.

I said that he should have poofed some land in for the OTHER people. Try reading next time.

Maybe he should have put in some giant glowing signs or something, shit like "Don't go here or I'll encourage my chosen people to slaughter every one of you, yours Truly God". I mean, he's omniscient, he should have seen it coming.

Once again, I don't have any idea what he's thinking. If he wanted it this specific way, then fine. We can question it all we want or we can try to justify it but the point is that it really doesn't matter what we say because that's what happened. And there's a good chance that maybe Hashem wanted it that way.

Edited June 11, 2010 by Life

[Esau of Isaac]

For the most part, yes to Kintembo. War is war and people die. Esau, get over it. Whatever the reasons are, people die in war. I'm sorry if you don't like it but the world isn't full of unicorns and rainbows.

And yeah, I'm not going to sugarcoat this next line. Hashem (God) told Joshua to eliminate all the tribes living in Cana'an at the time. Call it mass genocide if you will. Guilty as charged. Mind you, we fucked it up like we always do and paid a real hefty price (just read Judges if you don't believe me).

However, I'm just going to add to the last little bit of Kin's response. Murder and execution are two different things. There are multiple laws in the Torah that carry a punishment of death. My personal favourite example is "makeh ish vamet mot yumat" which translates into "if you hit a man so that he dies, you shall die too". We have another law against killing ("lo tir'tzach - Do not kill"). You could infer some sort of contradiction here but the idea is that when death is punishment for a suitable crime, it's not murder.

No, I won't fucking "get over it". It was complete inhumane slaughter of people, genocide on the most disgusting scale that is possibly imaginable. They murdered fucking women and children. The world doesn't have to be full of unicorns and rainbows for you to not worship a goddamn monster. But hey, I'm not really surprised. At least you're consistent.

Not really. See, you're forgetting the importance of that specific little strip of land. It was where Avraham, Yitzchak and Ya'akov (Abraham, Isaac and Jacob) lived. Avraham made a deal with Hashem there. All three met with angels in that land and Ya'akov had his name changed to Yisrael (Israel, hence where the name Children of Israel came from) there. Yitzchak and Ya'akov were both born there. It really didn't matter if Hashem "poofed more land" into existence because he promised us that specific place.

And what you are refusing to get is that it doesn't fucking matter what the land is. He's fucking omnipotent, he could have done an infinite number of things that didn't have anything to do with genocide. It's irrelevant what arguments you try to put together because he's supposed to be all-powerful.

So we should be condemning them for doing what everyone else did (you know, the Crusades kinda stick in my mind) while everyone else did it? Back in the olden days before we had partially useless organizations before the UN (hell, why don't we say at least 500 years ago), conquering armies would slaughter all civilians in a town as an example of what everyone else should not do. Attila the Hun was notorious for such acts. He'd walk in to a village, kill everyone and then tell the next town to pay up so that their town wouldn't be destroyed like the first one.

They were commanded to do this BY FUCKING GOD. You can't try and excuse this through antediluvian morality (which, by the way, doesn't excuse it in any fucking manner), as God, being infinitely wise, shouldn't logically be doing this shit so long as he's not a crazy fucking psycho.

And yet we should only hold one group of people accountable for doing this? I believe that's called hypocrisy. You can either vilify everyone for the same action or none of them. Don't pick and choose.

When did she say that she only held them guilty of genocide?

Maybe, maybe not. I don't have any clue what Big Guns Upstairs is thinking and what his plans are. If you think it's unfair, too bad. Life's unfair. Especially when you're Jewish but you learn to deal with it and make the most out of it, not bitch to high heavens.

Oh fuck you. You worship a being that encourages the most despicable act humanly possible, and when someone points out how horrible that is you answer with "too bad".

You have no right to complain about Kintenbo. You're just as big a sick bastard for handwaving away genocide and theft of those murdered.

Once again, I don't have any idea what he's thinking. If he wanted it this specific way, then fine. We can question it all we want or we can try to justify it but the point is that it really doesn't matter what we say because that's what happened. And there's a good chance that maybe Hashem wanted it that way.

That's right; he could tell you to do anything, and you'd find it good no matter how horrible.

Edited June 11, 2010 by Esau of Isaac

[Crystal Shards]

And yet we should only hold one group of people accountable for doing this? I believe that's called hypocrisy. You can either vilify everyone for the same action or none of them. Don't pick and choose.

Um...

When did she say that she only held them guilty of genocide?

Fail on your part Life. Huge fail.

Also I agree with everything Esau just said in his last post. I'd repeat the same basic arguments, but it'd be a waste of time. There's no "getting over" genocide, no matter who does it or who tells them to do it. The fact of the matter is that if God was as great as he purports to be, he wouldn't need to tell people to kill others. He could have just poofed those people into another batch of land, made it so others could have never inhabited the land but those he promised the land to (after all, he is omnipotent and omniscient, so that wouldn't have been a problem). Instead, he decides eh, genocide works too. That's either not omnibenevolence or he's a fucking idiot (which makes his claim to omniscience invalid). Face it: your god isn't what everyone--including you--says he is, if he even exists.

[Life]

No, I won't fucking "get over it". It was complete inhumane slaughter of people, genocide on the most disgusting scale that is possibly imaginable. They murdered fucking women and children. The world doesn't have to be full of unicorns and rainbows for you to not worship a goddamn monster. But hey, I'm not really surprised. At least you're consistent.

And what you are refusing to get is that it doesn't fucking matter what the land is. He's fucking omnipotent, he could have done an infinite number of things that didn't have anything to do with genocide. It's irrelevant what arguments you try to put together because he's supposed to be all-powerful.

They were commanded to do this BY FUCKING GOD. You can't try and excuse this through antediluvian morality (which, by the way, doesn't excuse it in any fucking manner), as God, being infinitely wise, shouldn't logically be doing this shit so long as he's not a crazy fucking psycho.

Oh fuck you. You worship a being that encourages the most despicable act humanly possible, and when someone points out how horrible that is you answer with "too bad".

You have no right to complain about Kintenbo. You're just as big a sick bastard for handwaving away genocide and theft of those murdered.

That's right; he could tell you to do anything, and you'd find it good no matter how horrible.

I find it quite hilarious that you're spinning my beliefs into something else. I'm just going over the chain of events here.

I say "this is written and this is what I think about it".

You say "so murder and genocide is OK in your religion's eyes?".

What I've been pointing out is what is written. If you want to argue the morality of it, go ahead. But the way that you're going, it looks like you're trying to paint those who follow my religion as some sort of psychotic murdering bastards when we're not.

If you were to read the Torah, you'd see that there is only one law that refers to other nations and war and all that jazz. That law is to wipe out the nation of Amalek completely, every last person. But that's the only one out of 613 of these laws. None of the rest of them preach violence in any way, shape or form.

Just because some things are stories doesn't mean that we follow them to the T. They are just that, stories. Only the case of Amalek is different and we can't even follow that law because we don't know who is from Amalek anymore and who isn't.

EDIT: In my second last paragraph, I slightly lied. We don't preach violence towards other nations (again, Amalek is the exception). But laws that involve the punishment of death are learned. However, there are a shitload of safeguards before we go to execution. In fact, the Gemarah in Masechet Makkot says that "a court that hands out a death sentence in seventy years is considered a violent court".

Edited June 11, 2010 by Life

[Esau of Isaac]

I find it quite hilarious that you're spinning my beliefs into something else. I'm just going over the chain of events here.

I say "this is written and this is what I think about it".

You say "so murder and genocide is OK in your religion's eyes?".

What I've been pointing out is what is written. If you want to argue the morality of it, go ahead. But the way that you're going, it looks like you're trying to paint those who follow my religion as some sort of psychotic murdering bastards when we're not.

No, you haven't just been pointing out what's been written. You've been given events of murder on the grandest scale imaginable and you've handwaved it away like it isn't anything worth acknowledging. I'm not irritated at all by some stupid words of some event that in truth probably never occurred in such a manner anyways; I'm more pissed by the fact that you can so easily trivialize something so horrible and explain it away under the pretense of divine will.

[Life]

No, you haven't just been pointing out what's been written. You've been given events of murder on the grandest scale imaginable and you've handwaved it away like it isn't anything worth acknowledging. I'm not irritated at all by some stupid words of some event that in truth probably never occurred in such a manner anyways; I'm more pissed by the fact that you can so easily trivialize something so horrible and explain it away under the pretense of divine will.

Because it's a story. I have no proof that it actually happened. There's no proof whatsoever. It up to you if you want to believe it or not. That's why I'm handwaving it. Because I have no idea if the story is true or not.

I do have a question though. If these stories are true, then what? What do you want me to say and what should happen? It's one thing to argue about it but what do you get out of it? Does it mean that all Jews (and Christians and Muslims too, to be honest) should die in return?

Edited June 12, 2010 by Life

[Esau of Isaac]

Because it's a story. I have no proof that it actually happened. There's no proof whatsoever. It up to you if you want to believe it or not. That's why I'm handwaving it. Because I have no idea if the story is true or not.

I do have a question though. If these stories are true, then what? What do you want me to say and what should happen? It's one thing to argue about it but what do you get out of it? Does it mean that all Jews (and Christians and Muslims too, to be honest) should die in return?

No, it doesn't. I don't care whether it happened or not. I care that you trivialize genocide because of religious view.

If this weren't about morality of the action, you wouldn't have told all of us to "get over it", with explanations to the effect of "this is how war works".

[Life]

If this weren't about morality of the action, you wouldn't have told all of us to "get over it", with explanations to the effect of "this is how war works".

Back then, that's how it did. You steamrolled over the people in conquered places. Me saying "get over it because that's how people did shit back in the day" is me essentially saying "look at this realistically and in the context of the times". By not doing that, you're putting a label on these people that they don't exactly deserve (the "fanatic followers of some God that will commit genocide as a means to an end"). If you really want to do that, then we better start rewriting history books by mentioning how evil all conquering nations were back then.

Your idealism is nice but once you start vilifying people because the world doesn't work now the same way that it did back then, your points sound a bit... absurd.

Edited June 12, 2010 by Life

[Esau of Isaac]

Back then, that's how it did. You steamrolled over the people in conquered places. Me saying "get over it because that's how people did shit back in the day" is me essentially saying "look at this realistically and in the context of the times". By not doing that, you're putting a label on these people that they don't exactly deserve (the "fanatic followers of some God that will commit genocide as a means to an end"). If you really want to do that, then we better start rewriting history books by mentioning how evil all conquering nations were back then.

Your idealism is nice but once you start vilifying people because the world doesn't work now the same way that it did back then, your points sound a bit... absurd.

They don't deserve the label of committing genocide upon innocent people? Please, continue with your apologist shtick. The longer you go on without even beginning to mention that this was utterly wrong and defend such vile acts, the more I'll conclude that you're hunky dory with it.

My points are only absurd if you are fine with the concept of mass slaughter.

Edit: For the record, I don't even know why you're lamely trying to dodge like this. Your entry post described this as a facet of war in and of itself and not just of that timeline (which it's not), which you then followed up on explaining that what these people did wouldn't necessarily constitute as murder. It's pretty clear what your stance on this is. Why are you bothering to try and hide it?

Edited June 12, 2010 by Esau of Isaac

[Phoenix Wright]

I care that you trivialize genocide because of religious view.

I don't mean to interrupt your guy's argument, but it seems to me you aren't responding to this particular statement. Saying "that's what they did back then, so who cares" isn't his point. Read what is says. He doesn't like the fact that you trivialize the crime just because of your religion.

For example, if I was Jewish and I believe what they did was horrific (his point), or I can have your attitude and say "eh God said it was okay so it's all good," which is what he's disagreeing with.

By the way, a supernatural "all benevolent" being DOESN'T TELL it's followers to commit genocide. That's not "the norm." The way they conquered was normal for the time, but not the motivational means.

[Life]

They don't deserve the label of committing genocide upon innocent people? Please, continue with your apologist shtick. The longer you go on without even beginning to mention that this was utterly wrong and defend such vile acts, the more I'll conclude that you're hunky dory with it.

My points are only absurd if you are fine with the concept of mass slaughter.

Edit: For the record, I don't even know why you're lamely trying to dodge like this. Your entry post described this as a facet of war in and of itself and not just of that timeline (which it's not), which you then followed up on explaining that what these people did wouldn't necessarily constitute as murder. It's pretty clear what your stance on this is. Why are you bothering to try and hide it?

I'm not trying to hide anything. You're just tossing up strawmen and twisting my argument into some sick little fantasy where I love the concept of mass genocide.

Let's go to the actual writing for a second. Can you find me the place where it says that Hashem commanded the people of Israel to kill every human being in Jericho? Because I can't.

My entry post did describe the casaulties as being a faucet of war but I thought that people would be smart enough to realize that this was normal in those time periods. Are the Greeks evil for putting Troy to the torch? What about the Huns for their treatment of their own people? What about every other nation that lived back then? If I'm defending the idea of total genocide, then most historians who claim that empires were doing what they could to rule apparently do the same.

[Kanami]

For the most part, yes to Kintembo. War is war and people die. Esau, get over it. Whatever the reasons are, people die in war. I'm sorry if you don't like it but the world isn't full of unicorns and rainbows.

I'm not trying to be racist or anything here, but this comment was ridiculous, that's like saying "Hitler was a great guy, sure there's the holocaust, but war is war, "people die in war." Get over it, and stop bogging up the news occassionally about jews and the holocaust. I actually agree that people die in war, but passing it off as "it happens" is ludicrous.

Maybe, maybe not. I don't have any clue what Big Guns Upstairs is thinking and what his plans are. If you think it's unfair, too bad. Life's unfair. Especially when you're Jewish but you learn to deal with it and make the most out of it, not bitch to high heavens.

Exactly, you, and every other jew/christian/muslim etc have no idea what the "Big Guns" is thinking, you've never met him and you don't know how he works. Then how are you able to claim he does things for the good of mankind? Maybe he's an evil demon guy who wants to kill us whenever he gets a chance? Maybe he's not omnipotent or divine? I don't understand how you can claim on one hand that

"God thinks this is bad, God thinks this is good"

and then switch to

"I don't know what God is thinking" whenever the situation becomes unfavorable. This is irresponsible and something most religious people are guilty of.

I also don't think that the argument of Hashem/God/Allah whatever wanting it that way makes it any more excusable. God almighty is father to all mankind whether they accept it or not. (According to religions) And the idea that he can genocide people as part of a plan is no different from saying A father should be able to kill his son whenever he wants because he knows what's best for his kid, and if that's death, killing is perfectly acceptable.

My entry post did describe the casaulties as being a faucet of war but I thought that people would be smart enough to realize that this was normal in those time periods. Are the Greeks evil for putting Troy to the torch? What about the Huns for their treatment of their own people? What about every other nation that lived back then? If I'm defending the idea of total genocide, then most historians who claim that empires were doing what they could to rule apparently do the same.

@Life: From what I can tell Esau is not attacking your religions followers, he is not saying you should feel guilty for actions long passed. But that the idea of Hashem(?) Killing people for his own needs/wants/plans is despicable. You supporting the idea that the killing may not have happened is not much different from people saying "Holocaust? That never happened" in which case I'm assuming you wouldn't agree. Alot of these religious debates turn into people defending their entire religion when the remarks are directed at specific parts. I really doubt that Esau would argue that people who follow "Love thy neighbour" are evil, or doing any wrong.

You need to read his posts and comprehend that Esau's attacks are on this one specific event, which if true, aren't acceptable even if Hashem did want it to happen. If Hashem did make a mistake here, it doesn't make everyone that follows him evil or wrong. That's like saying "You're great grandfather was a rapist so everyone in your bloodline is a rapist" and this clearly isn't true.

[Esau of Isaac]

I'm not trying to hide anything. You're just tossing up strawmen and twisting my argument into some sick little fantasy where I love the concept of mass genocide.

At the least, you're condoning it in this case.

Let's go to the actual writing for a second. Can you find me the place where it says that Hashem commanded the people of Israel to kill every human being in Jericho? Because I can't.

I don't feel like going through a Bible --electronic or otherwise-- at the moment as I'm too lazy, but God definitely encouraged the utter destruction of Canaan. I've forgotten a lot of the Bible in my years of utter atheist debauchery, but I doubt I'm so crazy as to remember the events completely incorrectly here.

My entry post did describe the casaulties as being a faucet of war but I thought that people would be smart enough to realize that this was normal in those time periods. Are the Greeks evil for putting Troy to the torch? What about the Huns for their treatment of their own people? What about every other nation that lived back then? If I'm defending the idea of total genocide, then most historians who claim that empires were doing what they could to rule apparently do the same.

I don't remember many historians attempting to state that genocide of past rulers wasn't murder. I'm still waiting for an explanation as to why an omnibenevolent being such as God would allow his own chosen people to commit acts that --whether everyone did them back then or not-- were not good. Unless they were good. Are they good or not? I still haven't heard you really give a definitive answer on this event. And, relative to divine intentions, let's kind of make this into simple questions:

I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that you are at the very least not particularly outraged at the many people killed by the Israelites as they proceeded to take their holy land as God had ordered them. I might even go so far as to say that you are probably fine with it, to a fair degree. The reason I would guess this is because it was ordered by none other than God. God, being to most that would worship him a perfect good, must always know right. Thusly, if God commanded all of these men and women to kill on such a large degree, surely it must be at the least not a bad thing.

But then, what if this were a man that had commanded this? What if the situation were only changed relative to the one that ordered Joshua to march on Jericho, from God to just some random up-and-coming king. Would this act be fine then? "No", I suspect you would say, as this individual is surely not of divine origin. But then, doesn't this really illustrate that God could tell one to do anything and you simply wouldn't question it? If this action were fine, what if God instructed you to kill your family? Would you go through with it, simply because it's God, and you've read and heard that he is always good?

Edited June 12, 2010 by Esau of Isaac

[Crystal Shards]

Wait I'm confused. Because a few posts back you said this:

Hashem (God) told Joshua to eliminate all the tribes living in Cana'an at the time. Call it mass genocide if you will. Guilty as charged. Mind you, we fucked it up like we always do and paid a real hefty price (just read Judges if you don't believe me).

And now you're saying:

Let's go to the actual writing for a second. Can you find me the place where it says that Hashem commanded the people of Israel to kill every human being in Jericho? Because I can't.

Which is it? Does God ask for genocide from his followers or not?

My entry post did describe the casaulties as being a faucet of war but I thought that people would be smart enough to realize that this was normal in those time periods. Are the Greeks evil for putting Troy to the torch? What about the Huns for their treatment of their own people? What about every other nation that lived back then? If I'm defending the idea of total genocide, then most historians who claim that empires were doing what they could to rule apparently do the same.

AGAIN, just because it's "normal" doesn't make it okay. Genocide is genocide, whether Hitler did it or Joshua did it, whether it's happening in Europe or Africa or Asia. Right now we're talking about religion, so yeah, the Bible is gonna be put to the test, because people claim God is all-benevolent, and ALL-BENEVOLENT BEINGS DO NOT CONDONE OR REQUEST GENOCIDE.

I honestly don't know how you can be thick enough to not understand that.

Edited June 12, 2010 by Crystal Shards

[Balcerzak]

On the one hand, I actually see Life's point here. He's saying that The Name commanded them to make war on all the tribes in the area and eliminate them. Now, maybe they were a little overzealous on their interpretation of 'eliminate', and maybe that was typical for the times, so if The Name didn't want to condone genocide, he probably should have chosen his words a little more carefully. But then again, he's not exactly been known for being all that smart when it comes to dealing with humans (e.g. that tree in the garden was just asking for trouble). Furthermore, the Torah is a series of texts, written by man in the context of their times. Since it was obviously perfectly acceptable practice in the time period, of course they'd have no problem recording it in the manner that they did, or perhaps even embellishing things.

On the other hand, I still take it as evidence that He's at the very least not omnnibenevolent. Whether or not he's a sadist is up in the air. Well, until you get to Job and He pretty much settles the issue.

Edited June 12, 2010 by Balcerzak

[Esau of Isaac]

On the one hand, I actually see Life's point here. He's saying that The Name commanded them to make war on all the tribes in the area and eliminate them. Now, maybe they were a little overzealous on their interpretation of 'eliminate', and maybe that was typical for the times, so if The Name didn't want to condone genocide, he probably should have chosen his words a little more carefully. But then again, he's not exactly been known for being all that smart when it comes to dealing with humans (e.g. that tree in the garden was just asking for trouble). Furthermore, the Torah is a series of texts, written by man in the context of their times. Since it was obviously perfectly acceptable practice in the time period, of course they'd have no problem recording it in the manner that they did, or perhaps even embellishing things.

On the other hand, I still take it as evidence that He's at the very least not omnnibenevolent. Whether or not he's a sadist is up in the air. Well, until you get to Job and He pretty much settles the issue.

Don't quote me on this, but I believe I remember God being pretty explicit when it came to ordering Joshua and his army.

I'll see if I can check it out tomorrow. Or, uh, later today.