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

[quanta]

First, I vote for Life as the official phoenix replacement or whoever that crazy guy was who would post in religion topics. Although I admit the comparison is hampered by Life's superior use of grammar and spelling compared to phoenix.

Secondly, some selectively modified quotes (and selectively lazy history; the exact details aren't too important here) for the pleasure of the audience. Ellipses used in an attempt to split stuff up into tiny coherent chunks.

And yeah, I'm not going to sugarcoat this next line. Hitler told Jager to eliminate all the Jews living in Lithuania 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...

Not really. See, you're forgetting the importance of that specific little strip of land. It was where good, honest German people were meant to live. Hitler made a deal with Stalin there. The two met and agreed to split Eastern Europe. It really didn't matter if Hitler could have "poofed more lebensraum" into existence because he promised the Germans that specific place...

So we should be condemning them for doing what everyone else did (you know, the Russians murdered more Jews than Hitler) while the whole Axis and some Allies did? Back in the olden days before we had partially useless organizations before the UN conquering armies would slaughter all the people in a town as an example of what everyone else should not do (resist). The Japanese were notorious for such acts (Nanking, the Philippines, etc)...

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. The Japanese did it too...

To us Neonazis, this area is special and holy. It was given to us by Hitler and it is mentioned multiple times within Mein Kampf at the very least...

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 Aryan but you learn to deal with it and make the most out of it, not bitch to high heavens...

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 belief'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 mein Fuhrer as some sort of psychotic murdering bastards when we're not...

If you were to read the great writing of our Fuhrer, you'd see that there is only a little bit that refers to other nations and war and all that jazz. That bit is to wipe out the nation of Israel completely, every last person. But that's the only one out many laws. None of the rest of them preach violence in any way, shape or form...

Ok, I slightly lied. We don't preach violence towards other (Aryan) nations. But laws that involve the punishment of death are learned.

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 Holocaust 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 Nazis (and Japanese Soldiers and Italian Fascists too, to be honest) should die in return?

EDIT: To be perfectly clear, no I am not saying that the Jews in the Old Testament acted like Nazis. Rather, I take issue with Life's particular argument and its structure; it should be pretty obvious why.

Edited June 13, 2010 by quanta

[Phoenix]

First, I vote for Life as the official phoenix replacement or whoever that crazy guy was who would post in religion topics. Although I admit the comparison is hampered by Life's superior use of grammar and spelling compared to phoenix.

You know I'm not even sure who you are. Why you're bringing me up on grammar issues that are probably wrong anyway is beyond me. If you don't have a decent quote to illustrate your point, I politely ask you to shut up and come up with a better comparison.

If people are going to insult me in a topic, I'd appreciate it if they at least waited for me to post in said topic first. (Yes I happened upon this post by chance cause I don't read this thread. Curiosity and a click and the first thing I see is this crap.)

On topic:

(After jumping and skimming around)

Genocide? Well just to put myself into the evil heartless bastard category before someone else does, I support it. I don't support regular genocide, but commanded genocide(and not from some random person, but from God if was commanded by him). People get way too bent out of shape over compassion and "the right to live" which I don't believe exists. God never gave humans the right to live, only the means to try to survive. Name one thing that human beings are owed from God, and please don't put life on that list cause you're wrong.

Esau is arguing morality is kind of pointless unless he's arguing the whole God is hateful thing again. Personally I feel that there's a severe lack of context in these stories.

@ Quanta

I've posted. You may try again now.

[Phoenix Wright]

On topic:

(After jumping and skimming around)

Genocide? Well just to put myself into the evil heartless bastard category before someone else does, I support it. I don't support regular genocide, but commanded genocide(and not from some random person, but from God if was commanded by him). People get way too bent out of shape over compassion and "the right to live" which I don't believe exists. God never gave humans the right to live, only the means to try to survive. Name one thing that human beings are owed from God, and please don't put life on that list cause you're wrong.

Esau is arguing morality is kind of pointless unless he's arguing the whole God is hateful thing again. Personally I feel that there's a severe lack of context in these stories.

@ Quanta

I've posted. You may try again now.

I don't think you really want him to, to be honest. :/

I can't really come up with anything witty, funny, or whatever it is you want, so I'll just wait until Revan, Crystal Shards, Esau, or Quanta posts. For the meantime though, I'll tell you that to allow "commanded" genocide is fucking inhumane. To allow GOD to do it? A supposed omnibenevolent being? That practically makes it an oxymoron. How can something devoid of flaws allow the innocent and sadistic murder of people, just because of their certain race/ethnicity/religion? Why is this even your opinion?

[Esau of Isaac]

Genocide? Well just to put myself into the evil heartless bastard category before someone else does, I support it. I don't support regular genocide, but commanded genocide(and not from some random person, but from God if was commanded by him). People get way too bent out of shape over compassion and "the right to live" which I don't believe exists. God never gave humans the right to live, only the means to try to survive. Name one thing that human beings are owed from God, and please don't put life on that list cause you're wrong.

Do you believe that human rights exist, irrespective of religion? In other words, leaving out God's will, do you believe you have the right to exist? If so, why would God matter in this? Because he's the one with the power? This is the only possibility, I find. The only reason you would forgo the use of any moral compass you otherwise possess would have to lead back to a scale of strength, with the one on top rightly being able to ignore the rules that everyone else constructs. It's rather silly.

Why you condone actions that you have stated even in this post to be otherwise wrong so long as God commands you to do it, I don't know.

Esau is arguing morality is kind of pointless unless he's arguing the whole God is hateful thing again. Personally I feel that there's a severe lack of context in these stories.

This began more with a correction of statements saying that Christians have never been commanded to dispense God's will.

[Snowy_One]

What is a right anyways? You talk of a right to exist, but what exactly is that?

[Phoenix]

Just to clarify:

I don't believe in the right to live OR the right to exist. Regardless of God's involvement, I don't believe in either. We made those up ourselves. The point I was making is that adding morality to the picture doesn't do much more than paint God as a villain.

As for your "God is a tyrant" thing, I don't believe that's true either. Humans typically define anything "good" as something that doesn't directly harm us and potentially aids/augments/enriches/gratifies/glorifies us in some way, while most if not everything that doesn't is seen as "bad". There are huge examples of this being false.

Examples:

Growing pains

General Exercise

Life lessons(insert your own here)

Humiliation(this one is up for debate I'll admit)

I'm bringing this up because before we do this whole God is not omni-benevolent, I want to know what you believe is wrong and what's right.

[Janissary]

I believe in the right to choose. By extention of this, I believe in the right of each person to be allowed to choose how to live his or her life (positive or negative as it may be). As a further extention, I disagree with Abortion because I feel it violates that life's right to choose the direction of his/her life and I feel murder is immoral because it depraves the victim of the right to control (somewhat) the terminus of his/her life.

Now, as a Christian, I have to reconcile this with the Torah, which clearly states that Joshua was ordered to essentially slaughter all non-Jews. In my opinion, the only way to reconcile this is to believe is the foreknowledge of God, more commonly espoused as the Christian doctrine of Election (Calvinism). Since God foreknew whom he had chosen to be elected to recieve salvation, the earthly death of a non-elect (of whom the Canaanites would be) by the sword is no different than the non-elect dying of old age. The end result is the same. Now before you call this a license to kill any non-Christian, it is not. Canaanite deaths were direct orders of God, in whom it is trust to foreknow. Because I do not have direct order from God and do not know whom is elected, I can not kill someone without consequence, as it seemed the Israelites were permitted to do. My victim may very well have been elected in some alternative universe. Without going to deep into conspiricies, you get the idea, I am sure.

I realize this sounds extremely naive and foolish, and even very self righteous and arrogant. I just wanted to represent another fact of Christianity's diamond. Is this the most correct view? Mostly likely not, as Christianity teaches all man is fallen and imperfect, and therefore all of man's doctrines (and writings) are fallen and imperfect. I realize that this is not a very logical argument. But, if you presuppose a God to exist, which I have due to various evidences, I feel that Christianity provides the best basis for forming a consistant belief system, and in the world of religion, consistancy, not logicity, is king.

[Esau of Isaac]

What is a right anyways? You talk of a right to exist, but what exactly is that?

I don't understand the question.

Just to clarify:

I don't believe in the right to live OR the right to exist.

Alright. So you are fine with me killing you.

Regardless of God's involvement, I don't believe in either. We made those up ourselves.

And?

The point I was making is that adding morality to the picture doesn't do much more than paint God as a villain.

Which He can be, much of the time.

As for your "God is a tyrant" thing, I don't believe that's true either.

How would you define a tyrant?

Humans typically define anything "good" as something that doesn't directly harm us and potentially aids/augments/enriches/gratifies/glorifies us in some way, while most if not everything that doesn't is seen as "bad". There are huge examples of this being false.

Examples:

Growing pains

General Exercise

Life lessons(insert your own here)

Humiliation(this one is up for debate I'll admit)

...Wait, in your first sentence you put forth a statement, and then subsequently disprove it.

I'm not sure what to do here.

I'm bringing this up because before we do this whole God is not omni-benevolent, I want to know what you believe is wrong and what's right.

Do you believe that genocide is a benevolent action? If not, then you would accept that the God of the Bible is not infinitely benevolent. If so, then I think I can safely say that this conversation is pretty much finished.

I believe in the right to choose. By extention of this, I believe in the right of each person to be allowed to choose how to live his or her life (positive or negative as it may be). As a further extention, I disagree with Abortion because I feel it violates that life's right to choose the direction of his/her life and I feel murder is immoral because it depraves the victim of the right to control (somewhat) the terminus of his/her life.

Now, as a Christian, I have to reconcile this with the Torah, which clearly states that Joshua was ordered to essentially slaughter all non-Jews. In my opinion, the only way to reconcile this is to believe is the foreknowledge of God, more commonly espoused as the Christian doctrine of Election (Calvinism). Since God foreknew whom he had chosen to be elected to recieve salvation, the earthly death of a non-elect (of whom the Canaanites would be) by the sword is no different than the non-elect dying of old age. The end result is the same. Now before you call this a license to kill any non-Christian, it is not. Canaanite deaths were direct orders of God, in whom it is trust to foreknow. Because I do not have direct order from God and do not know whom is elected, I can not kill someone without consequence, as it seemed the Israelites were permitted to do. My victim may very well have been elected in some alternative universe. Without going to deep into conspiricies, you get the idea, I am sure.

I realize this sounds extremely naive and foolish, and even very self righteous and arrogant. I just wanted to represent another fact of Christianity's diamond. Is this the most correct view? Mostly likely not, as Christianity teaches all man is fallen and imperfect, and therefore all of man's doctrines (and writings) are fallen and imperfect. I realize that this is not a very logical argument.

I don't understand. How is murder of people who will not join people in heaven the same thing as them dying of old age? How is that at all comparable?

But, if you presuppose a God to exist, which I have due to various evidences, I feel that Christianity provides the best basis for forming a consistant belief system, and in the world of religion, consistancy, not logicity, is king.

Why would you say that it is the best basis?

[Phoenix]

My comments in red.

Alright. So you are fine with me killing you.

That was weak. If you can't tell the difference between a person telling you they don't believe in rights, and a person telling you they're alright with being murdered then you're insane.

I said that I believe we don't have the right to live. That doesn't mean I will gladly lay down my life without a good reason.

In plain english: Not believing in the right to live=/=Not minding death by Esau

And?

And keep reading instead of chopping up my posts.

Which He can be, much of the time.

Good God, is that all you care about? It's like you don't even care if he exists anymore. As long as he's evil :/

How would you define a tyrant?

A bad chess player would be a good metaphor for a tyrannical god. Someone who's shortsighted with no long term plans laid out in advance. Someone constantly loosing pawns with no payoff, and who can't produce a victory for himself or his creation.

...Wait, in your first sentence you put forth a statement, and then subsequently disprove it.

I'm not sure what to do here.

Read it again very carefully.

It said that this in essense:

People define good as things that don't hurt them and make them feel good. They define bad things as anything that harms them. That definition has proven to be false.

Do you believe that genocide is a benevolent action? If not, then you would accept that the God of the Bible is not infinitely benevolent. If so, then I think I can safely say that this conversation is pretty much finished.

Do I believe that genocide is a benevolent action? Not of and by itself, no. If it accomplishes a greater purpose, then yes. If I have to go into precisely what I believe about this whole genocide thing I will, but until then, I'd rather do this fringy definition war.

[Esau of Isaac]

That was weak. If you can't tell the difference between a person telling you they don't believe in rights, and a person telling you they're alright with being murdered then you're insane.

I said that I believe we don't have the right to live. That doesn't mean I will gladly lay down my life without a good reason.

In plain english: Not believing in the right to live=/=Not minding death by Esau

Yes it does. If you would resist me killing you, then you believe that at least you have a right to life.

You saw you wouldn't gladly lay down your life, of course because it's you; but what about people you hold dear? Would you be fine with someone ending their lives?

And keep reading instead of chopping up my posts.

Nah.

Good God, is that all you care about? It's like you don't even care if he exists anymore. As long as he's evil

It's a pretty big deal to me when someone calls someone complicit with murder omnibenevolent, especially when they worship them. Sue me.

A bad chess player would be a good metaphor for a tyrannical god. Someone who's shortsighted with no long term plans laid out in advance. Someone constantly loosing pawns with no payoff, and who can't produce a victory for himself or his creation.

...So how would you define a tyrant? Like, without analogies?

Although, you could call God a pretty bad chess player, what with the bothering to play chess at all. No real need for pieces in a game.

Read it again very carefully.

It said that this in essense:

People define good as things that don't hurt them and make them feel good. They define bad things as anything that harms them. That definition has proven to be false.

Because it has an overall benefit, and the problems with them are either unavoidable or minor. We accept growing pains as a sign of growth, we take the physical exhaustion of our bodies after exercise as signs that we're pushing ourselves farther, and we accept that we can't make life always perfect.

You can't compare growing pains to fucking genocide, if you're trying to argue that because it had a positive benefit in God's eyes, it is thus alright.

Do I believe that genocide is a benevolent action? Not of and by itself, no. If it accomplishes a greater purpose, then yes. If I have to go into precisely what I believe about this whole genocide thing I will, but until then, I'd rather do this fringy definition war.

What would you call a greater purpose? What kind of greater purpose is going to come from slaughtering a people?

Edited July 1, 2010 by Esau of Isaac

[Janissary]

Esau, for the comment about murder=old age if one is not elected, I am trying to point that because in a Christian worldview, the destination of such a person would be hell for eternity regardless of when death occurs, the extra 30 years on earth is negligable to eternity. Of course, this is only in context of a direct order from God. Not just everyday life.

I find Christianity to be the most consistant system in comparison with how the world functions and why it is that way. I immediately rule out all polytheistic religions of which I have heard of, seeing as they all seem to be Gods who fight among themselves, or there are so many of them I could not possibly even come close to pleasing them should they exist. In general, the idea of many Gods has always seemed odd to me; I have always thought God would be an all powerful figure. If there are many, are they all omnipotent? Do they share power and fight over it? I just don't see how it would work. With so many gods, it seemed like a lot of the different rules for each woudl overlap and contradict.

Monothiesm was, in my opinion, the only option. I ruled out Judaism because it seemed that Christianity was a more complete version of it. Also, seeing as Jews can't sacrifice anymore, it seems as if either they can't please God or they have changed their doctrines so that they may please God. Either way, it seemed fishy. As for Islam, upon research, I learned that Islam spread largely through the sword. In comparison with the first century of Christianity, 6th century Islam was a cold, cruel religion. I wnated no part of that (Yes, I am aware of the Crusades. I can address that later if you'd like.) On top of that, modern Muslims don't even appear to follow rules set by Mohammed (i.e. Mohammed did not kill "people of the book", which were Jews and Christians). If Muslims can mess with rules set by the prophet himself, what can't they mess with? I wanted something that was not going to change.

Finally I had Christianity. While I admit I have some bias both for and against it from growing up around it, I found it to be the most likely to be true. When you rule out the impossible, what is left is the answer. That is the sort of thought I came to for Christianity. It doesn't contradict itself (contrary to what you think, I know, but it does not. It may be wrong, but if it is, it is wrong consistantly :) ) Christianity also seemed the offer the most hope. I have lived life long enough to wonder why I should even bother with it. Most religions try to solve this by setting you up in a system of rules that you must not break. After this, God will love you and you will be accepted. In Christianity, God loved you so much even as you were still a sinner that he changed the rules (Judaism) into a new system (Christianity) that no longer was dependant on human obedience (as we would fail) and instead was dependant on simple faith in Christ.

[Phoenix Wright]

I'm not saying you should believe in polytheism, but to rule out polytheism for your excuse of a "power struggle" simply discredits what it means to be a god.

Did you research everything except Christianity? Accepting Christianity even though they were violent, while at the same time you ignore the other two for the same reason is contradictory. Why do Christians have the right to kill?

Don't try to compare extremist retards to any normal Islamic people.

Doesn't contradict itself?

Do a simple Google search.

[Nightmare]

As for Islam, upon research, I learned that Islam spread largely through the sword. In comparison with the first century of Christianity, 6th century Islam was a cold, cruel religion. I wnated no part of that (Yes, I am aware of the Crusades. I can address that later if you'd like.)

Exactly what battles are you talking about here?

On top of that, modern Muslims don't even appear to follow rules set by Mohammed (i.e. Mohammed did not kill "people of the book", which were Jews and Christians). If Muslims can mess with rules set by the prophet himself, what can't they mess with? I wanted something that was not going to change.

Excuse me? Where are you getting this? Did you make a survey asking all ~2.5 billion Muslims of the world about their beliefs? Because what you're saying here is specifically about the extremists. Yes, I am aware that the extremists aren't few in numbers, but they're just that: extremists. I, personally, don't believe in killing at all (unless someone is a major threat to the society, like a serial killer or something), and I'm pretty sure all the Muslims that I know (which go over a hundred in numbers) don't believe in killing people of the book. We still adhere closely to the rules set by the prophet.

I'm really not sure where you're getting your facts from.

[Phoenix Wright]

Exactly what battles are you talking about here?

He's speaking on their behavior, I'm guessing,

Excuse me? Where are you getting this? Did you make a survey asking all ~2.5 billion Muslims of the world about their beliefs? Because what you're saying here is specifically about the extremists. Yes, I am aware that the extremists aren't few in numbers, but they're just that: extremists. I, personally, don't believe in killing at all (unless someone is a major threat to the society, like a serial killer or something), and I'm pretty sure all the Muslims that I know (which go over a hundred in numbers) don't believe in killing people of the book. We still adhere closely to the rules set by the prophet.

I'm really not sure where you're getting your facts from.

More like 1.5 billion, but I agree. Most Muslims do not believe in murder at all. Extremists do, normal Islamic people don't. Jannisary, where do you get your harsh generalizations from? The media? Your parents?

[Nightmare]

More like 1.5 billion, but I agree. Most Muslims do not believe in murder at all. Extremists do, normal Islamic people don't. Jannisary, where do you get your harsh generalizations from? The media? Your parents?

Err, yeah, I don't know how I made that mistake. I meant 1.5 billion. But my point stands.

Funny thing is, Muslims don't even believe in killing atheists, as long as they're righteous. So it doesn't just extend to people of the book. And I'm sure that killing someone is the very last thing we're told to resort to.

[Janissary]

I was referring to this. I was comparing those conquests with the spead of early Christianity, which was largely through missionary, traveling merchants, etc. Christianity grew in spite of persecution, Islam grew due to aggressive expansion territorial by religious states.

I'll concede the point on Muslims and murder. I apologize for the generalization. However, the Koran contains extremely similar verbage on issues such as murder/non-believers to the Bible, so you must conclude that how you feel about one text is the same as you should feel about another.

[Nightmare]

I was referring to this. I was comparing those conquests with the spead of early Christianity, which was largely through missionary, traveling merchants, etc. Christianity grew in spite of persecution, Islam grew due to aggressive expansion territorial by religious states.

I'll agree that it was a pretty cruel way of spreading Islam (despite working very well), but take note that it was after the prophet's death, where certain power hungry men sought to take matters into their own hands and lead conquests into other lands.

Though obviously, this has also happened (and perhaps continues to happen) with the other two monotheistic religions, so it's not like Islam is the only religion that has been used like this.

[Phoenix Wright]

Err, yeah, I don't know how I made that mistake. I meant 1.5 billion. But my point stands.

Funny thing is, Muslims don't even believe in killing atheists, as long as they're righteous. So it doesn't just extend to people of the book. And I'm sure that killing someone is the very last thing we're told to resort to.

The only time Islamic people are able to kill nowadays (this is the ONLY way possible that I know of) is if they are invaded by people who seek to destroy them and/or their land. The enemy must have provoked it as well, obviously.

There are arguments however, that quote the Qur'an which tells one to kill the enemy if they aren't Muslim. That quote is taken way out of context, and coincides with my above statement. Basically, we can only kill in self-defense.

I was referring to this. I was comparing those conquests with the spead of early Christianity, which was largely through missionary, traveling merchants, etc. Christianity grew in spite of persecution, Islam grew due to aggressive expansion territorial by religious states.

I'll concede the point on Muslims and murder. I apologize for the generalization. However, the Koran contains extremely similar verbage on issues such as murder/non-believers to the Bible, so you must conclude that how you feel about one text is the same as you should feel about another.

Read what I said to Nightmare. It is taken out of context. We do NOT condone the innocent murder of anyone. Edited July 1, 2010 by MGS: Metal Gear Solid

[Janissary]

MGS, the many attacks on this thread against Christians are against Christian extremists. It seems fair that if others point out extremism in Christianity that we should be allowed to point out extremism in other religions. Right?

[Phoenix]

Red.

Yes it does. If you would resist me killing you, then you believe that at least you have a right to life.

You saw you wouldn't gladly lay down your life, of course because it's you; but what about people you hold dear? Would you be fine with someone ending their lives?

Once again, you're wrong. People do many things for many reasons. Wanting to live, and believing you have the express right to live are two different things.

Let me quote you something.

Want and Need are two different things

Want, Need, and Deserve are three different things

~Phoenix

Basically what I'm saying is that having the desire to live, and feeling that you deserve to, or have a right to are not the same. Throughout history individuals have admitted that they deserved to die. In all likelihood, not all of them actually killed themselves or let someone else. Basic human nature wouldn't allow that.

It's a pretty big deal to me when someone calls someone complicit with murder omnibenevolent, especially when they worship them. Sue me.

Humans kill each other all the time. Give God is turn.

In all seriousness though, there's more to the story than just murder. The goal is salvation, not generation after generation of conflict leading up to total extinction.

...So how would you define a tyrant? Like, without analogies?

Although, you could call God a pretty bad chess player, what with the bothering to play chess at all. No real need for pieces in a game.

A tyrant is a cruel and oppressive dictator apparently. Once again though, we don't have the whole story pieced together. What's the true cruelty in the end of life on this earth?

Because it has an overall benefit, and the problems with them are either unavoidable or minor. We accept growing pains as a sign of growth, we take the physical exhaustion of our bodies after exercise as signs that we're pushing ourselves farther, and we accept that we can't make life always perfect.

You can't compare growing pains to fucking genocide, if you're trying to argue that because it had a positive benefit in God's eyes, it is thus alright.

I almost smiled when you said growing pains and people dying in wars essentially shouldn't be compared. Thing is, they're exactly the same. Every hardship in life has the potential to make us stronger. You discount it because you seem to believe with certainty that death is the end. It is, but only if God does nothing to rectify that. the Bible already says he will though I won't go into that until I have to.

What would you call a greater purpose? What kind of greater purpose is going to come from slaughtering a people?

There's a better time for the people who died. After being dead for thousands of years, they'll have a much easier time being humbled once they're resurrected.

[Esau of Isaac]

Once again, you're wrong. People do many things for many reasons. Wanting to live, and believing you have the express right to live are two different things.

Let me quote you something.

Want and Need are two different things

Want, Need, and Deserve are three different things

~Phoenix

Basically what I'm saying is that having the desire to live, and feeling that you deserve to, or have a right to are not the same. Throughout history individuals have admitted that they deserved to die. In all likelihood, not all of them actually killed themselves or let someone else. Basic human nature wouldn't allow that.

Which is why I posed the question of me killing others that aren't you.

Humans kill each other all the time. Give God is turn.

In all seriousness though, there's more to the story than just murder. The goal is salvation, not generation after generation of conflict leading up to total extinction.

Irrelevant. He endorsed genocide for the goal of stealing land (which didn't end up working so great, btw), when it wasn't at all necessary. The ends don't justify the means, here.

A tyrant is a cruel and oppressive dictator apparently. Once again though, we don't have the whole story pieced together. What's the true cruelty in the end of life on this earth?

So what about the continued genocide against the people of Canaan was not cruel and oppressive?

I almost smiled when you said growing pains and people dying in wars essentially shouldn't be compared. Thing is, they're exactly the same. Every hardship in life has the potential to make us stronger.

Phoenix, you can't spin this. You can't argue that slaughter of thousands of non-combatant, innocent people is the same as fucking growing pains because some good may come of both. Growing pains are a negligent problem in life, and the person doesn't suffer for either a long period, nor very intensely. Moreover, it's an unavoidable event. GENOCIDE ISN'T.

And F-Y-Fucking-I, genocide isn't a hardship in life. It's a crime against humanity.

You discount it because you seem to believe with certainty that death is the end. It is, but only if God does nothing to rectify that. the Bible already says he will though I won't go into that until I have to.

You really don't have to. You've already shown you're complicit with the act of murdering thousands of defenseless men, women and children.

There's a better time for the people who died. After being dead for thousands of years, they'll have a much easier time being humbled once they're resurrected.

Yeah, it'll be much easier to cow them into submission. Those little fuckers know what'll happen if they act up again.

[Phoenix]

Red.

Which is why I posed the question of me killing others that aren't you.

Listen. Listen really carefully because having to explain the difference between "Want" and "Deserve" is RIDICULOUS.

Do I want loved ones to die? No. Do I believe that they have the right to live? No. Does that disbelief in their right to live mean that I now want them to die? No.

If you can't figure this out ... find someone who can better explain it cause I'm done.

Irrelevant. He endorsed genocide for the goal of stealing land (which didn't end up working so great, btw), when it wasn't at all necessary. The ends don't justify the means, here.

And who the hell are you to discount missing context on the basis of "It's just flat out wrong"?

Context aside, a better alternative doesn't mean that's the one that should be used. You assume you know what the goal is from God's perspective. If you knew what his goal was, and knew the details, you might not be whining about ancient massacres so much.

So what about the continued genocide against the people of Canaan was not cruel and oppressive?

Once again, you're confounding and isolating everything into single occasions and deciding their relevance and meaning based on the actions taken therein.

It's total BS and you've got no business doing it.

Phoenix, you can't spin this. You can't argue that slaughter of thousands of non-combatant, innocent people is the same as fucking growing pains because some good may come of both. Growing pains are a negligent problem in life, and the person doesn't suffer for either a long period, nor very intensely. Moreover, it's an unavoidable event. GENOCIDE ISN'T.

Just watch me argue it.

First off, you write off growing pains as insignificant. I wasn't talking about just physical growing pains. I'm talking about life's hardships, not just occasional soreness and tension.

Second, a lot of good can come from dying that you don't even seem to have considered.

End of suffering

End of continued corruption(this is simply to say that the longer you're alive, the more corrupt you can become)

Etc.

Third, God's plan is an inevitable event, and if that includes genocide well you better stop whining and hope you survive it, cause meaningless spouts like "It's wrong and it's a crime against humanity!" will have little sway with armed soldiers.

And F-Y-Fucking-I, genocide isn't a hardship in life. It's a crime against humanity.

I ... think I should have bunched those together ... whoops.

You really don't have to. You've already shown you're complicit with the act of murdering thousands of defenseless men, women and children.

Cry me a river. Where's your bleeding heart for everyone else that dies in that book? What about the people the Canaanites killed? What about all the other corrupt nations and their victims? What about the Jews themselves? How many people did they lose that you won't even bother to mention in your humanitarian rant?

Yeah, it'll be much easier to cow them into submission. Those little fuckers know what'll happen if they act up again.

Now you've got the picture. Get with God, or you're dead.

That's a good deal. I'd take it.

@ Main article

I can't really say that I feel sorry for Atheists if they're being discriminated against. Not to sound cold, but everybody gets a turn, right? While being denied certain jobs is going WAY too far, it's not the worst thing this country has ever done. There's always a point in history where certain people aren't allowed to do certain things, and some even die for trying. Right now, Atheists and Homosexuals are apparently going through their phase, and I hope they come out of it with a stride and not a bloody crawl.

@ Home eviction

That reminds me of something I saw on television. This man brought home a nice girl to the family, but the "Soldier of the Lord" housewife woman didn't want to let her in. She went on a tangent for about three minutes. I've never seen a woman that large yell for so long. It was ... a little disturbing.

In short. Home eviction for that reason alone is just plain stupid, and a law suit is in order.

[Esau of Isaac]

Listen. Listen really carefully because having to explain the difference between "Want" and "Deserve" is RIDICULOUS.

Do I want loved ones to die? No. Do I believe that they have the right to live? No. Does that disbelief in their right to live mean that I now want them to die? No.

If you can't figure this out ... find someone who can better explain it cause I'm done.

I think you should probably stop, yeah. You want them to live, right? By definition, you think that they should live, as you disagree with them dying. Meaning that you possess a belief that they should not die. If you don't think that they deserve to die, you think they deserve to live. Unless there's some state of being in between those two mutually exclusive terms that I don't know of.

And who the hell are you to discount missing context on the basis of "It's just flat out wrong"?

Context aside, a better alternative doesn't mean that's the one that should be used. You assume you know what the goal is from God's perspective. If you knew what his goal was, and knew the details, you might not be whining about ancient massacres so much.

His goal was fucking stated, Phoenix. It was to give the land that the Canaanites possessed to his people. Context doesn't matter when it comes to fucking genocide.

"Judge, yes, I did rape and murder that six-year-old retarded girl, but you're not getting the context of the situation". This is how you're sounding right now.

Once again, you're confounding and isolating everything into single occasions and deciding their relevance and meaning based on the actions taken therein.

It's total BS and you've got no business doing it.

Yeah, BECAUSE THAT'S HOW CRIMES WORK. I don't give a flying fuck whether the world is one iota better a thousand fucking years down the lane because God ordered for the genocide of over half a dozen peoples, because it was built upon by the murder of thousands and thousands of innocent people. I don't give fuckall if in the future we end up discovering FTL travel a hundred years sooner as some vague link resultant of the Holocaust. That doesn't make all of the inexcusable events therein fine in the slightest.

Just watch me argue it.

First off, you write off growing pains as insignificant. I wasn't talking about just physical growing pains. I'm talking about life's hardships, not just occasional soreness and tension.

You can't escape from life's hardships; that's why they are hardships of life.

Second, a lot of good can come from dying that you don't even seem to have considered.

End of suffering

End of continued corruption(this is simply to say that the longer you're alive, the more corrupt you can become)

Etc.

In the first case, it's less a good thing and more not as bad a thing. This can also be a horrible thing, if the individual ends their lives over suffering that they could have treated through the help of others.

Third, God's plan is an inevitable event, and if that includes genocide well you better stop whining and hope you survive it, cause meaningless spouts like "It's wrong and it's a crime against humanity!" will have little sway with armed soldiers.

Yes, especially when those armed soldiers are too busy following said God's will and murdering others because it's his will, rather than understanding all of the innocent people they slaughter.

Cry me a river. Where's your bleeding heart for everyone else that dies in that book? What about the people the Canaanites killed? What about all the other corrupt nations and their victims? What about the Jews themselves? How many people did they lose that you won't even bother to mention in your humanitarian rant?

HURR DURR YOU'RE SPEAKING OUT AGAINST THE CRIMES OF NAZIS, WHY AREN'T YOU PROTESTING THE RWANDAN GENOCIDE TOO

I've never understood this braindead stance. I can still disagree with other injustices while standing with a specific one in a debate.

Now you've got the picture. Get with God, or you're dead.

That's a good deal. I'd take it.

Because you're spineless. Your entire argument boils down to forgoing a moral outlook because the one with all the power will get his whatever we desire. You even defend the most heinous of actions, and deride those who are subject to genocidal urges of said individual, all because you're powerless in the grand scheme of things.

It's disgusting.

[Defeatist Elitist]

Yeah, BECAUSE THAT'S HOW CRIMES WORK. I don't give a flying fuck whether the world is one iota better a thousand fucking years down the lane because God ordered for the genocide of over half a dozen peoples, because it was built upon by the murder of thousands and thousands of innocent people. I don't give fuckall if in the future we end up discovering FTL travel a hundred years sooner as some vague link resultant of the Holocaust. That doesn't make all of the inexcusable events therein fine in the slightest.

Actually, let's go at this a bit more.

Many scientific breakthroughs occurred in Nazi Germany, due almost entirely to the holocaust (human experimentation, etc). With some good old Phoenix logic, we now have "THE NAZIS WERE JUSTIFIED AND GREAT, LOOK AT WHAT THEY HAVE DONE FOR US HOW DARE YOU SAY THE HOLOCAUST WAS BAD".

[Phoenix]

Blue ... for a change of pace.

I think you should probably stop, yeah. You want them to live, right? By definition, you think that they should live, as you disagree with them dying. Meaning that you possess a belief that they should not die. If you don't think that they deserve to die, you think they deserve to live. Unless there's some state of being in between those two mutually exclusive terms that I don't know of.

I tend to see a difference between what I want at any given moment in time(which can change at the drop of a hat) and my own philosophies(which hardly ever change).

How about an example since I'm just bored enough to continue this crap.

I want a motorcycle. Do I feel like I deserve it? No. I just want one. I know I haven't done anything to earn one. It's the same with human lives, you just don't want to see it.

His goal was fucking stated, Phoenix. It was to give the land that the Canaanites possessed to his people. Context doesn't matter when it comes to fucking genocide.

"Judge, yes, I did rape and murder that six-year-old retarded girl, but you're not getting the context of the situation". This is how you're sounding right now.

First of all, slow down. Salvation is a very long war, and one goal for the moment doesn't constitute all the reasons for something taking place. Last time I checked, the bible is chalk full of dozens of purposes behind people doing tiny little things or even having visions.

Yeah, BECAUSE THAT'S HOW CRIMES WORK. I don't give a flying fuck whether the world is one iota better a thousand fucking years down the lane because God ordered for the genocide of over half a dozen peoples, because it was built upon by the murder of thousands and thousands of innocent people. I don't give fuckall if in the future we end up discovering FTL travel a hundred years sooner as some vague link resultant of the Holocaust. That doesn't make all of the inexcusable events therein fine in the slightest.

One iota? One measly iota? Do you have any idea- never mind. If you don't understand what humans really are( and why we don't have an inherent right to live), then there's no use in trying to explain why the massacres took place to begin with.

You can't escape from life's hardships; that's why they are hardships of life.

God's plan is one of life's hardships. Deal with it.

In the first case, it's less a good thing and more not as bad a thing. This can also be a horrible thing, if the individual ends their lives over suffering that they could have treated through the help of others.

What? Like asylum help? Pills? Suicide hotlines? Hookers?

I've got a better idea. How about Great White Throne help? It's free and there's no strange side effects.

Yes, especially when those armed soldiers are too busy following said God's will and murdering others because it's his will, rather than understanding all of the innocent people they slaughter.

If you say innocent one more time, I'm going to assume from now on that you actually believe that the human race is a fluffy bunny rabbit race with no evil thoughts or deeds whatsoever. There's no such thing as an innocent person.

HURR DURR YOU'RE SPEAKING OUT AGAINST THE CRIMES OF NAZIS, WHY AREN'T YOU PROTESTING THE RWANDAN GENOCIDE TOO

I've never understood this braindead stance. I can still disagree with other injustices while standing with a specific one in a debate.

You can, but you really shouldn't in a religious scuffle. Your seemingly passionate ranting about innocent people dying because God is uberEVIL isn't the best way to get your point across.

Because you're spineless. Your entire argument boils down to forgoing a moral outlook because the one with all the power will get his whatever we desire. You even defend the most heinous of actions, and deride those who are subject to genocidal urges of said individual, all because you're powerless in the grand scheme of things.Too bad you can't even guess what the grand scheme is ...

It's disgusting.

*marked for humanitarian content garbage*

You think I don't have a moral outlook on any of this, or that I just ignore it? What I was trying to tell you is that there's a bigger picture in all of this. You're not interested in the bigger picture, you're only interested in whining and griping about slaughters that you wouldn't give a rat's ass about if not for hating God and desperately needing ammunition in the first place. I came at you for that "It's immoral!" BS because I know for a fact that you don't care about a bunch of people who died in a war that happened ages ago, just like you don't care about any other people that die today unless their deaths serve some purpose in some other worthless complaint you have. WE'RE ALL LIKE THAT. IT'S HUMAN NATURE. We don't care about other human beings until they serve a purpose to us. You're doing the same thing, so don't try to feed me your self-righteous garbage.

"It's disgusting"? I'm an authoritarian and a realist, and your lack of foresight is just disappointing.

@ Revan

What did the holocaust have to do with- riiiiight. That's just your way of broadening my viewpoint until it fits into one of your lame jokes. Got it.

Edited July 3, 2010 by Phoenix