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

[Bereta_Eder]

(I should point out that I don´t exclude other religions/denominations in this ... the muslim faith would be another fine example of a religion with the potential to negatively affect society (especially if it comes to the Sharia. On the other hand the muslims are just another version of the abrahaistic faith ... and therefore share a lot of stories with the christians ... especially the deep amoral stories you can find in the old testament.)

This is so true.
And everyone should free himself from the yoke of organized religion which in most cases is just a very reactionary force.
When it is used for spiritual means on a personal level (and together with others) it's ok
When it is trying to infiltrate everyday life or even worse, politics, then it's basta.

In turkey in an open bar, there was some pleasant music. Then all of the sudden the music stops and from the mosques the imams started goign "alllaaaahhh allaaaaahhh". I said WTF is this?

A turkish couple next to me threw their mobile inside an empty glass (effectively creating a megaphone) and started playing music, completely ignoring this intermission.

Religious yoke be broken

[ricketyclik]

Still don't understand the one-way fixation.

It's generally about countering the incredible one-eyedness of the religious right.

[loinburger]

If there were any Amalekites left alive who were defending the reprehensible actions of their ancestors then they'd also be getting questioned/reprimanded/whatever. However, they've all been genocided.

The thing is, if your god has been recorded as ordering a genocide, then there are only a few ways to address the issue:
1. God is evil, in which case his worshipers are evil
2. God is amoral, in which case his worshipers are amoral (this is the "god gets to define morality to mean whatever he wants" option)
3. God used to be evil/amoral but now he's not
4. The Israelites slaughtered the Amalekites of their own volition, and falsely claimed that god ordered the slaughter

The fourth option is pretty much the only acceptable one if you're going to claim that god is good and (more or less) unchanging. It's also not that far-fetched of an explanation: ancient people (and, to be fair, modern people as well) had a habit of slaughtering each other - no doubt my ancestors did some evil and nasty **** as well, but this is only a problem for me morally if I defend their actions by e.g. claiming that the god they worshiped and that I worship ordered the evil and nasty ****.

[kentonio]

Do we have any other sources for the Amalekite attacking first, or is this a 'history as told by the victor' deal?

[giblets]

Did the Amalekites have a flag? Did they have papers proving they owned the land?

[loinburger]

Do we have any other sources for the Amalekite attacking first, or is this a 'history as told by the victor' deal?

The Israelites record themselves as the unprovoked aggressors in other situations, so I think it's reasonable to assume that they accurately recorded (more or less) that the Amalekites took unsuccessful military action and that the Israelites retaliated with a genocide - they'd have no reason to fabricate a casus belli when in previous and later conflicts their casus belli was "we just wanted to kill them and take their land / livestock / virgins / etc."

[kentonio]

Good point well made.

[rah]

so I think it's reasonable to assume

Using the word reasonable in a debate about religion is a waste of time. When have people like ben ever expressed anything even remotely reasonable.

[loinburger]

That should be reworded to "so I think it's reasonable for those [in this case Kentonio] who are treating the bible as a semi-historical document to assume..." If somebody is treating the bible as the infallible word of god then they're too far gone to be reasoned with.

[Berzerker]

my faith comes closest to all living beings carrying a certain divine spark in themselves that unites them all ... you may call it one kind of Uber-Soul.

some missed their ride

[kentonio]

That should be reworded to "so I think it's reasonable for those [in this case Kentonio] who are treating the bible as a semi-historical document to assume..." If somebody is treating the bible as the infallible word of god then they're too far gone to be reasoned with.

To be fair, if you take out the supernatural stuff, its probably not a terrible second hand source for historical goings on, considering that much of it is corroborated by other sources. It would be pretty weird if they'd just invented all the major real world events, as surely people at the time would have had trouble buying into a complete fabrication of history. You'd just expect their version of those events to be highly biased.

[MRT144]

They tried and failed. That is why they no longer exist. Had they simply responded to what the Israelites offered, they would have survived. Israel didn't just pick them or mark them - rather they condemned themselves. In my book, if you attempt to exterminate a tribe and you lose - that tribe is not bound by any other rule than the one you ruled to them.

Why are you a Christian if your morality is incongruent with the ideals of Christianity? Seriously, the only reason the church doesn't kick you out is because pedophiles need hush money and you credulously tithe like the idiot you are.

Like, if I was ranking the reasons you're a Christian, where would I put "Get to be a ****head to other people because they were a ****head to me"

[MRT144]

Where does the bible state "If a black person robs you, you get to hate black people as a bloc"

Sounds like something that ****head Paul would say but I'm not a Christian, I don't know scripture. Do you?

[Berzerker]

Paul was murdering Christians, I dont place any value on what he said

[loinburger]

I don't think the Christians had a flag, so indiscriminately killing them didn't count as murder