foolish question

[allsmiles]

Does the name Neville Chamberlin mean anything to you?

Remember that what you're describing is what Europe tried to do with Hitler before WWII. Rather than risk bloodshed and confront Hitler, the Europeans (England, France, Austria, Russia and Czechoslovakia) all made "land for peace" deals with Hitler's Germany. Hitler than violated the treaties each time. They tried to have a peaceful resolution, but it just was untenable. Finally, because they let Hitler fester for so long, the bloodshed in WWII was far greater than it would have been if they had just dealt with him earlier.
Yes, war is terrible, but sometimes the consequences of not going to war are far worse. The Bible is correct when it states that there is "A time of war, And a time of peace." Ecclesiastes 3:8

:yawn:

would you say that in this situation peace was not a practical means of survival?

or was survival on the bottom of their list of priorities? were the Europeans motivated by morals or were they motivated by self-preservation?

 

[Stripe]

i'll parachute into this one again ...

i hold a particular viewpoint that makes my opinion highly relevant - i come from a nation roughly the same population as israel was ex-egypt. i tell you that if we went to australia to look for food and the perthians turned us into slaves then god sent us jonah to take us home, parted the tasman and we turned up at tauroa to find the land of paua and pukeko overrun by fellas who didnt listen to god or even jonah then god said we had to take them on or else that whole journey was a waste of time . then regardless of the length of the sentence id just written .. i suppose id be more than happy to have a go. id prefer to use our nukes to their plaster walls .. just to make it a bit safer for us .. but whatever works ..

but then .. what does one do with the kids? leave them there for the moa to chew on? hardly seems fair. adopt them all? hek no ... theyd turn into personal slaves for everyone. i know ... ask jonah to ask god..

uh .. jonah said god said we had to kill all the babies and then cut off parts of our penises and put them in a pile.

sounds reasonable... lets go.

 

[Balder]

i'll parachute into this one again ...

i hold a particular viewpoint that makes my opinion highly relevant - i come from a nation roughly the same population as israel was ex-egypt. i tell you that if we went to australia to look for food and the perthians turned us into slaves then god sent us jonah to take us home, parted the tasman and we turned up at tauroa to find the land of paua and pukeko overrun by fellas who didnt listen to god or even jonah then god said we had to take them on or else that whole journey was a waste of time . then regardless of the length of the sentence id just written .. i suppose id be more than happy to have a go. id prefer to use our nukes to their plaster walls .. just to make it a bit safer for us .. but whatever works ..

but then .. what does one do with the kids? leave them there for the moa to chew on? hardly seems fair. adopt them all? hek no ... theyd turn into personal slaves for everyone. i know ... ask jonah to ask god..

uh .. jonah said god said we had to kill all the babies and then cut off parts of our penises and put them in a pile.

sounds reasonable... lets go.

Reasonable... :think: I suppose, for folks who would turn the spared children into slaves. If they'd do that, they'd probably have no problem just spearing em instead.

 

[Stripe]

Reasonable... :think: I suppose, for folks who would turn the spared children into slaves. If they'd do that, they'd probably have no problem just spearing em instead.

can you please entertain this idea a bit more... realise that i have no problem saying people are evil .. i am slanted that way myself .. dealing with people is generally going to be a messy business...

and that is what god deals with .. he reaches out and touches the things that are most vile and turns the situation into something beautiful. those of us who remain get to argue over whether or not god cares when our lives are spent destroying everything ..

being sucked in to arguing over the topic of this thread is simply another example. i could be otherwise sucked in to writing a book or talking to a friend or making dinner, but instead i spend my time on entertainment at the expense of the memory of thousand year old kids.

You're a soldier in Joshua's army, you got order's to smote everyone in town A, you've killed all the men, and the women, and now it's time to butcher the infants. Don't be shy! Step right up and tell me what you'd do.

please consider what you will gain if you win this argument. youve just convinced the world that we are under the thumb of a god who cares nothing for humanity. hope is meaningless and nowhere to be found. all we strive for will disappear and after that .. nothing .. at best. even the illusion of advancement through science and reason will fail when the suns explode and the universe collapses .. science itself dictates its own end.

and please consider what a very unfair position you put the christian in when you make this argument. you ask us to take the place of a soldier from thousands of years ago in a gypsy nation wandering in a desert with numerous city-kingdoms threatening to wipe them out entirely. you then ask us to make a moral decision in a situation we know little if anything about .. a decision that you say youd make with certainty when the people who were there didnt make it. in fact the only rebellion shown was to steal money after having killed kids.

you ask us to help them make the right decision and then apply that hypothetical as if wed make the same decision in todays world. well ill make a decision. if god asks me to run a kid through i wont do it. not if he reveals himself in all his glory .. not in a million years. hows that? id tell him to put it away and then id hide the kid from him so he couldnt do anything ...

have you won?

no you havent. youve shown what a waste of time and effort questioning god is. you question him because you hate him or you question him because you think he doesnt exist but in all of your questioning you merely imply that you are either illogical in the extreme .. or twisted beyond belief.

imagine trying to prove your best friends non-existence because he said you shouldnt steal anything and then tomorrow he takes your car. thats illogical in the extreme.

now try to imagine up a few reasons as to why he may have taken your car. pretty easy right?

now imagine you get to confront your friend. what do you do? call the cops on him and have him hauled away without considering anything he said or even giving him the chance to speak? thats twisted beyond belief.

fortunately everyone always has another possible path to follow that follows logic and right morality ...

i parachuted in here, now im departing this bomb on wheels like keanu did in speed. the first instance.

 

[koban]

Charming to see Satanists understanding that God has higher standards than Satan, and God expects His followers to live up to those higher standards.

Pssst - newbie!

Granite's not really a Satanist.

 

[Balder]

Hi, Stipe,

I didn't start this thread, but it's like threads I've started before. When I side against those Christians who say they would have no problem following God's orders and would cut the children and women down to the very last one, I am not trying to demonstrate that God is either evil or nonexistent. Here's my own position on the Biblical stories: they represent the beliefs, thoughts, and interpretations of an ancient people. I think we all, as individuals and as cultures, go through various stages of moral development. As we develop, our "circle of concern" generally expands outwards, encompassing not just our selves and our families, but wider and wider circles that include more individuals and types of beings. We become more "universal" in our care and compassion. I think the Old Testament texts record the reasoning and self-justifications of people at a basic ethnocentric perspective -- one that was an improvement in many respects on more brutal (power-centered) forms of moral reasoning that had come before, but one which is still fairly harsh and "limited" compared to more modern perspectives. All individuals must go through the same basic path of development in moral perspective, so even today you will find people who resonate most with narrow circles of concern (comparable in many respects to the early Biblical ethnocentric perspective), and who spit on those who argue for wider circles of concern, just as they scorn those who are more narrow than themselves.

In my opinion, challenging Christians to question whether God really commanded and endorsed the brutal acts recorded in parts of the Old Testament is not an attempt to discredit the idea of God altogether, or even to discourage them from being Christians. Personally, for me, such exercises are meant to inspire inquiry and self-reflection (for myself as well as for others). I think it is certainly possible to "let go" of the idea that God endorsed these things -- holding instead that these are narrow interpretations of a people who were loyal to him but limited in moral vision -- without turning against God altogether. I think the Bible records a trajectory of the development of moral reasoning, with Jesus' teachings representing a higher, wider perspective. When Christians take the Bible as equally inspired in all parts, equally representative of God's thoughts and acts in all parts, I think they "level" the moral playing field, relativizing it on a horizontal plane (emphasizing expediency, for instance) rather than grasping more vertical relations that may exist among various moral perspectives and teachings, in the Bible and outside.

I believe there is a "sacred presence" behind (and throughout) the universe, and I believe people can have varying degrees of intimacy with and understanding of this presence. I do not doubt that there were at least some people among the ancient Hebrews we are discussing who had genuine spiritual insight and experience. However, I do not believe the Hebrews were directly instructed by "God" to go into various cities, wipe them out, kill everything in them, and take them for themselves. If you insist that God actually did this, I think you elevate the early stages of human moral reasoning to divine status and undermine the potential for present moral growth.

Best wishes,

Balder

P.S. I dig REM, too.

 

[logos_x]

I would sooner perform an abortion.


I would not do it.

 

[logos_x]

Deu 12:30 Take heed to thyself that thou be not snared by following them, after that they be destroyed from before thee; and that thou inquire not after their gods, saying, How did these nations serve their gods? even so will I do likewise.
Deu 12:31 Thou shalt not do so unto the LORD thy God: for every abomination to the LORD, which he hateth, have they done unto their gods; for even their sons and their daughters they have burnt in the fire to their gods.
Deu 12:32 What thing soever I command you, observe to do it: thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it.

Nor would I do what these people that God ordered killed were guilty of doing///

 

[Granite]

Pssst - newbie!

Granite's not really a Satanist.

Excellent. That's exactly what I want them to think...

:devil:

 

[genuineoriginal]

Pssst - newbie!

Granite's not really a Satanist.

If Granite wants to name himself after a dense rock and call himself a Satanist, who am I to say he isn't?

 

[genuineoriginal]

and survival is not a moral dilemma.

slaughtering defenseless women and children is.



my disbelief in your specific god has nothing to do with this.

killing an enemy on the battlefield before he kills you is not a moral dilemma.

killing the enemy's wife and child after dragging them out of their home is.



no, it was an observation that you understand the difference between a life and death situation being an issue of practicality/survival and killing women and children being a moral dilemma.

Ahhh. You don't believe in God because He doesn't live up to your idea of morality?

God wrote the book on morality, who are you to question it?

 

[Balder]

I would sooner perform an abortion.


I would not do it.


Deu 12:30 Take heed to thyself that thou be not snared by following them, after that they be destroyed from before thee; and that thou inquire not after their gods, saying, How did these nations serve their gods? even so will I do likewise.
Deu 12:31 Thou shalt not do so unto the LORD thy God: for every abomination to the LORD, which he hateth, have they done unto their gods; for even their sons and their daughters they have burnt in the fire to their gods.
Deu 12:32 What thing soever I command you, observe to do it: thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it.

Nor would I do what these people that God ordered killed were guilty of doing///

Yes, condemning the act of genocide on the Hebrews' part is not an endorsement or justification of the practices of the nations which were destroyed.

Wiping out all the children of a people for your God because they are evil enough to sacrifice some of their children to their god is rather darkly ironic, don't you think?

 

[genuineoriginal]

Yes, condemning the act of genocide on the Hebrews' part is not an endorsement or justification of the practices of the nations which were destroyed.

Wiping out all the children of a people for your God because they are evil enough to sacrifice some of their children to their god is rather darkly ironic, don't you think?

Here is one possible reason for the killing of the women and children. It comes from a Joshua Bible Study by Abba II

Excitement was running high by the seventh day. Again, Joshua, the priest, the ark bearers, and the people arose about the dawning of the day. As the priests blew the trumpets of ram' horns, the people shouted with a great shout. The shout was great, but not great enough to send shock waves through the walls of Jericho to tumble them, as some rationalists have supposed. Nevertheless, read Joshua 6:20. Joshua continued to destroy the city after the walls came tumbling down...read Joshua 6:21. All that remained was burned, a fact confirmed by 20th century archaeology. God's methods were accomplished entirely. Some have said that the complete destruction of the city, including every living creature, was a severe gesture. But the Canaanites practiced all sorts of abominations opposed to the spiritual principles of the God of Israel. The worship practices of the Canaanites included debased sexual perversions (human/animal, etc.) and live sacrifice of children. I personally believe that venereal disease was rampant in both man and beast, adult and child... our society today is being reduced down to the level of a pack of dogs concerning sexual behavior...we would do well to learn from these heathen nations. Thus God commanded that they be destroyed, and the Israelites followed explicitly God's methods until they were accomplished entirely.

The rampant venereal disease would have destroyed the Children of Israel, just like it is doing to America. Death was the only solution at the time, and there was no way to sort out who was infected and who wasn't.

 

[allsmiles]

Ahhh. You don't believe in God because He doesn't live up to your idea of morality?

i'll do you a favor and actually quote you line for line. if you're going to make statements about what i believe i'd prefer it if you actually defer to what i believe rather than what you'd like me to.

i don't believe in your god because the documentary record, textual criticism, archaeology, comparative religion and myth, hero archetypes, midrash, etc. all point to a completely different conclusion than the christian one.

God wrote the book on morality, who are you to question it?

men write books on morality.

you need an entire book and weekly worship services to perpetuate the belief in the opposite of that one, five word sentence and what it implies.

don't bother responding to this post.

go back, reread the post of mine that you quoted and then answer it like a man.

 

[Balder]

Here is one possible reason for the killing of the women and children. It comes from a Joshua Bible Study by Abba II

The rampant venereal disease would have destroyed the Children of Israel, just like it is doing to America. Death was the only solution at the time, and there was no way to sort out who was infected and who wasn't.

Possibly. However, this smells unpleasantly like so many other demonizing and dehumanizing rationales that have been used to justify wholesale extermination of people (before or after the fact).

 

[genuineoriginal]

i'll do you a favor and actually quote you line for line. if you're going to make statements about what i believe i'd prefer it if you actually defer to what i believe rather than what you'd like me to.

i don't believe in your god because the documentary record, textual criticism, archaeology, comparative religion and myth, hero archetypes, midrash, etc. all point to a completely different conclusion than the christian one.



men write books on morality.

you need an entire book and weekly worship services to perpetuate the belief in the opposite of that one, five word sentence and what it implies.

don't bother responding to this post.

go back, reread the post of mine that you quoted and then answer it like a man.

I did answer it like a man. This is what it said

and survival is not a moral dilemma.

slaughtering defenseless women and children is.



my disbelief in your specific god has nothing to do with this.

killing an enemy on the battlefield before he kills you is not a moral dilemma.

killing the enemy's wife and child after dragging them out of their home is.



no, it was an observation that you understand the difference between a life and death situation being an issue of practicality/survival and killing women and children being a moral dilemma.

This was my response:

Ahhh. You don't believe in God because He doesn't live up to your idea of morality?

God wrote the book on morality, who are you to question it?

My response is that you are trying to create your own reality that does not take into account that war is about killing an enemy on the battlefield, and dragging his wife and child out of their home to kill them too.

Killing women and children in a time of peace is a moral dilemma, as found in the abortion issue.

Killing women and children in a time of war is a normal and natural thing that has been done in every war on the planet from the time history has been recorded.

The Bible is the book on morality. If you don't like it, don't take it up with me, take it up with the author: GOD.

If you want to continue rewriting reality to suit your own opinions, then you will continue to live in a fantasy world. :loser:

 

[genuineoriginal]

Possibly. However, this smells unpleasantly like so many other demonizing and dehumanizing rationales that have been used to justify wholesale extermination of people (before or after the fact).

You will note that I said it was one possible reason.

What I believe is what I posted in response to allsmiles. Killing women and children in a time of war is a normal and natural things for humans to do. Because of the logistics involved, it is often the best way to win a war.

If Joshua and the Children of Israel had not killed every man, woman, child, and beast, and burned all the pillage except for the things they took for God's treasury, then they may have won the battle of Jericho, but lost the war for the land of Israel. The surrounding nations would not have seen the Children of Israel as a powerful army that followed the orders of a powerful GOD. They would have thought that the Children of Israel were no different than any other foreign invader. God would not have gotten respect from those nations.

 

[fool]

can you please entertain this idea a bit more... realise that i have no problem saying people are evil .. i am slanted that way myself .. dealing with people is generally going to be a messy business...

and that is what god deals with .. he reaches out and touches the things that are most vile and turns the situation into something beautiful. those of us who remain get to argue over whether or not god cares when our lives are spent destroying everything ..

being sucked in to arguing over the topic of this thread is simply another example. i could be otherwise sucked in to writing a book or talking to a friend or making dinner, but instead i spend my time on entertainment at the expense of the memory of thousand year old kids.

The children may be long dead but that concept of God is still around.

please consider what you will gain if you win this argument. youve just convinced the world that we are under the thumb of a god who cares nothing for humanity. hope is meaningless and nowhere to be found. all we strive for will disappear and after that .. nothing .. at best. even the illusion of advancement through science and reason will fail when the suns explode and the universe collapses .. science itself dictates its own end.

I find it very unlikely I will convince the world of anything, they don't all worship the same Gods now, so it would be a heroic task indeed to convince them all that all their Gods were evil. And yes the universe may collapse some day, I would hope that as long as there were humans that they would treat each other humanely, so that what time they did have was spent in love and not hate.

and please consider what a very unfair position you put the christian in when you make this argument. you ask us to take the place of a soldier from thousands of years ago in a gypsy nation wandering in a desert with numerous city-kingdoms threatening to wipe them out entirely. you then ask us to make a moral decision in a situation we know little if anything about .. a decision that you say youd make with certainty when the people who were there didnt make it. in fact the only rebellion shown was to steal money after having killed kids.

Sad indeed, they would hide a gold tea pot but not an innocent human being, a great illustation that they did percieve the incredible waste of their dealings but had their priorities skewed.

you ask us to help them make the right decision and then apply that hypothetical as if wed make the same decision in todays world. well ill make a decision. if god asks me to run a kid through i wont do it. not if he reveals himself in all his glory .. not in a million years. hows that? id tell him to put it away and then id hide the kid from him so he couldnt do anything ...

Then you are in rebellion against the God of the Bible, the ramifications of this fact are something you should examine.

have you won?

You just told us you wouldn't do it, I am pleased to find a rightous man who would stand against those that would wontonly butcher infants.

no you havent. youve shown what a waste of time and effort questioning god is. you question him because you hate him or you question him because you think he doesnt exist but in all of your questioning you merely imply that you are either illogical in the extreme .. or twisted beyond belief.

Enlighten yourself my friend, Yaweh is but one God of thousands that man has worshiped, and what you know of him was told to you by men who had their own ambitions. I don't hate God, I seek the true God. But when I die if the true God turns out to be a bloodthirsty egomaniac then I will hate him, and oppose him, and spend all the power of my being to defeat him, because there is such a thing as right and wrong.

imagine trying to prove your best friends non-existence because he said you shouldnt steal anything and then tomorrow he takes your car. thats illogical in the extreme.

Why not use the real question, what if your friend killed your baby?

now try to imagine up a few reasons as to why he may have taken your car. pretty easy right?

There is No set of circumstances that would excuse him methodicaly butchering your kid with a kitchen knife, and anyone who tried to convince you that what he did was right is twisted and evil.

now imagine you get to confront your friend. what do you do? call the cops on him and have him hauled away without considering anything he said or even giving him the chance to speak? thats twisted beyond belief.

You've got a dead child in your arms, what could he possibly say?

fortunately everyone always has another possible path to follow that follows logic and right morality ...

If you mean to convince themselves that black is white and wrong is right then yes they do have a path to that, it's called religion.

i parachuted in here, now im departing this bomb on wheels like keanu did in speed. the first instance.

Say hi to that bus driver for me.

 

[kmoney]

You will note that I said it was one possible reason.

What I believe is what I posted in response to allsmiles. Killing women and children in a time of war is a normal and natural things for humans to do. Because of the logistics involved, it is often the best way to win a war.

If Joshua and the Children of Israel had not killed every man, woman, child, and beast, and burned all the pillage except for the things they took for God's treasury, then they may have won the battle of Jericho, but lost the war for the land of Israel. The surrounding nations would not have seen the Children of Israel as a powerful army that followed the orders of a powerful GOD. They would have thought that the Children of Israel were no different than any other foreign invader. God would not have gotten respect from those nations.

And here I thought God wanted Israel to be different then the other nations....:doh:

 

[Balder]

Killing women and children in a time of war is a normal and natural things for humans to do. Because of the logistics involved, it is often the best way to win a war.

The fact that it is a common practice, and possibly militarily expedient, does not mean that it is therefore good or moral.

If Joshua and the Children of Israel had not killed every man, woman, child, and beast, and burned all the pillage except for the things they took for God's treasury, then they may have won the battle of Jericho, but lost the war for the land of Israel. The surrounding nations would not have seen the Children of Israel as a powerful army that followed the orders of a powerful GOD. They would have thought that the Children of Israel were no different than any other foreign invader. God would not have gotten respect from those nations.

Yes, if you plan to invade a country for the purpose of taking it for yourself, it is "expedient" to destroy everyone there who might object to your intentions, or resent your actions. Again, this doesn't make it moral. It's just a way to accomplish another aim (taking someone else's territory), which is also morally problematic.

It is true that the Bible describes God as seeking to demonstrate that he IS God by the sheer massive destruction and violence he can rain down on humanity, but that sounds more like the modus operandi of a despot or a tribal warlord, not a moral and righteous being.