Sharia Law at Wal Mart [Trigger Warning: People Arguing With Ben]

[Ben Kenobi]

well there ya go, do to others before they will do unto you

Interesting how all those condemning the Israelites refuse to condemn the Amalekites? I've always wondered that. I wasn't a Christian and I read all these passages. Still don't understand the one-way fixation.

[Ben Kenobi]

So it's not about freedom, it's about it being OK for the pope to conquer when he's got the upper hand, but when he doesn't, it's an outrage that other people do the same to him?

Most of the land corresponds with the Byz remnant. For a long time, the pope was the only authority in the area capable of providing civil control. I don't really see the argument in the 19th century against compensation. It's not like the Pope was a newcomer, the Pope was there first, Italy formed around him, rather than the opposite.

[N35t0r]

Most of the land corresponds with the Byz remnant. For a long time, the pope was the only authority in the area capable of providing civil control. I don't really see the argument in the 19th century against compensation. It's not like the Pope was a newcomer, the Pope was there first, Italy formed around him, rather than the opposite.

Never mind all the people living there.

[Berzerker]

Interesting how all those condemning the Israelites refuse to condemn the Amalekites? I've always wondered that. I wasn't a Christian and I read all these passages. Still don't understand the one-way fixation.

I didn't condemn the Israelites nor did I refuse to condemn the Amalekites, I dont know enough about what actually happened to make such a judgement

[C0ckney]

I don't really see the argument in the 19th century against compensation.

you should have told the pope then, seeing as how he rejected compensation in the 19th century.

[Proteus_MST]

Interesting how all those condemning the Israelites refuse to condemn the Amalekites? I've always wondered that. I wasn't a Christian and I read all these passages. Still don't understand the one-way fixation.

I actually don´t judge the morals of the israelites (mere humans, just like the Amalekites) but rather the morals of the one who is supposed to have ordered the israelites to do it ... i.e. YHWH.

As for condemning the actions ...
biblical "fact" is, that the Amalekites did wage a military battle against the israelites and attacked unprovoked ... and that the israelites after a long and hard struggle won the battle.
We don´t know what the Amalekites would have done had they won this specific battle ... but there ins another account of a battle betwen israel and the Amalekites + Canaanites, where the Amalekites + Canaanites just drove the Israelites away from their home region (without attempting to commit genocide). (Numbers 14:39-45).
So, the only genocide we know about is commited by the Israelites (and ordered by YHWH)

And condemning the Amalekites for attacking the israelites without provocation would also mean to cast the first stone ... after all the Israelites did the same with the land of Canaan ... i.e. wage an unprovoked war of conquest upon it (again, on the orders of YHWH).

So, as I said ... rather low moral standards for a divine being (i.e. YHWH) which we see displayed in the bible

[Berzerker]

low standards for "God", yes, but ones we can live up to

wanna kill people and you're a Christian, join the military

[Ben Kenobi]

you should have told the pope then, seeing as how he rejected compensation in the 19th century.

As opposed to what they actually did do, seize his land without compensation?

[Ben Kenobi]

We don´t know what the Amalekites would have done had they won this specific battle

Ah, the old handwave defense. "we don't know that they attempted genocide". What part of attacking a smaller, weaker nation while they are still in the desert isn't clear?

[Ben Kenobi]

Never mind all the people living there.

What about them. You seem to believe that they weren't Italians because they supported the pope.

[Kidlicious]

I actually don´t judge the morals of the israelites (mere humans, just like the Amalekites) but rather the morals of the one who is supposed to have ordered the israelites to do it ... i.e. YHWH.

As for condemning the actions ...
biblical "fact" is, that the Amalekites did wage a military battle against the israelites and attacked unprovoked ... and that the israelites after a long and hard struggle won the battle.
We don´t know what the Amalekites would have done had they won this specific battle ... but there ins another account of a battle betwen israel and the Amalekites + Canaanites, where the Amalekites + Canaanites just drove the Israelites away from their home region (without attempting to commit genocide). (Numbers 14:39-45).
So, the only genocide we know about is commited by the Israelites (and ordered by YHWH)

And condemning the Amalekites for attacking the israelites without provocation would also mean to cast the first stone ... after all the Israelites did the same with the land of Canaan ... i.e. wage an unprovoked war of conquest upon it (again, on the orders of YHWH).

So, as I said ... rather low moral standards for a divine being (i.e. YHWH) which we see displayed in the bible

Every battle they won "the Lord commanded."
Every battle they lost they went to battle alone.

[Proteus_MST]

Ah, the old handwave defense. "we don't know that they attempted genocide". What part of attacking a smaller, weaker nation while they are still in the desert isn't clear?

Is it worse than attacking a peaceful city without provocation and killing everyone there and also repaying hospitality with robbing their host?
(Judges 18)

Sounds to me like they, as well, attacked weaker people in this case ... peaceful people who didn´t have a standing military to defend their city and who didn´t do any harm to the israelites.
Not to mention the farmer living in the landscape nearby ... who gave 5 scouts of the tribe of Dan a place to stay the night ... and as thanks for his hospitality was robbed at swordpoint.

In contrast to the people of Laish, the israelites, even when still in the desert, seemed to have possessed a strong military ... after all they were able to defend themselves against bthem (which also might have been the reason for the attack by the Canaanites and Amalekites in Numbers 14:39-45, i.e. that the Israelites trespassed the borders of the Canaanite country and the Amalekites and Canaanites feared (rightfully so) for the safety of their people, if they would allow a huge nomadic group of people with a large military arm to reside in their country.

Compared to the actions of the israelites themselves I cannot see anything in the bible that singled the Amalekites out as so evil, that a genocide was justified.

Every battle they won "the Lord commanded."
Every battle they lost they went to battle alone.

Yep ...
that is, except against people with iron chariots,
against whom even the lord wasn´t able to help the israelites (Judges 1:19)...
seems like iron chariots are a perfect antidote against god

[Ben Kenobi]

Is it worse than attacking a peaceful city without provocation and killing everyone there and also repaying hospitality with robbing their host?
(Judges 18)

I suggest you read the subsequent chapter, Judges 19 for the answer to your question.

So they entered the hill country of Ephraim and came to the house of Micah, where they spent the night.

There the Danites set up for themselves the idol, and Jonathan son of Gershom, the son of Moses, and his sons were priests for the tribe of Dan until the time of the captivity of the land. They continued to use the idol Micah had made, all the time the house of God was in Shiloh.

What can you tell me of the history of the House of Dan?

[Bereta_Eder]

Now the italians ride scooters and shout "ciao bella"
Could they have done that under the pope?
No.

[Bereta_Eder]

They would all be riding in the pope mobile behind bullet proof glass and in long dresses.
Try to score a chick like that. You can't.