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

[loinburger]

Then why is the special relationship of the Jews and YHWH and the directions of YWHW especially odious to you? If this is the case, then what the Israelites were told to do is irrelevant. Genocide is genocide and that's my point.

The relationship of the Jews with god is relevant because that is your justification for morally defending genocide. This would be like my saying "John had no moral justification for killing James," and your replying with "John has a third nipple, why do you hate people with third nipples?"

Whenever the victim is someone who's not white, westerner, Christian, or Jew, you've defended them. Whenever they are, you've made the point that they deserved what they got. Why is this?

Please find a post where I have defended the genocide of a group that is white/western/Christian/Jewish, then link to the post in question. Apparently I make posts like this quite often so this should be an easy task for you to accomplish.

I've stated that Israel has a right to travel in peace and a right to live in peace in Israel. This right does not supercede the rights of others to live there, but it does supercede their right to lob rockets into kindergartens. If a nation is sufficiently aggressive as to attempt to kill all the Jews, then I would argue that Israel has every right to defend themselves. If enough of the people attacking the Jews die before they learn to stop attacking them, then that's on them, not the Jews.

I speak as a Christian of German extraction. Technically this would mean that a Jew would be justified in attacking me the same way that my tribe attacked them. I have no cause to tell them that they must act differently than what we judged to them.

Given that the Amalekites were not innocent and attempted genocide, do you believe that it's ok to attempt to kill them?

What I don't understand is: if you believe that it was morally justified to kill the infants and unborn children of the Amalekites, then why are you opposed to abortion? You clearly don't believe in the innocence of infants / the unborn.

In answer to your question, no, it it is not morally justifiable to murder children in retaliation for the actions of their parents.

[Ben Kenobi]

What I don't understand is: if you believe that it was morally justified to kill the infants and unborn children of the Amalekites, then why are you opposed to abortion? You clearly don't believe in the innocence of infants / the unborn.

Better question, if you believe genocide is wrong, why do you support abortion, given Margaret Sanger's affirmation of black genocide, and the abortion clinic as a crucial tool in achieving her goal?

In answer to your question, no, it it is not morally justifiable to murder children in retaliation for the actions of their parents.

Which would be a great argument against abortion in the case of rape.

Please find a post where I have defended the genocide of a group that is white/western/Christian/Jewish, then link to the post in question. Apparently I make posts like this quite often so this should be an easy task for you to accomplish.

You're doing it right now. Whenever someone stands up for the Jews, there you are, arguing that the Jews deserved what they got. Why is what the Jews did relevant to the point, unless not all genocide is the same? Is it possible that they just deserved it?

I've already stated that I don't believe that genocide is justified. I've also stated that I don't expect non Christians to abide by Christian teachings, Jews have Lex Talionis.

[Berzerker]

They lived in Edom, in what is now Southern Jordan. Where the Israelites would have to pass through in order to reach the promised land.

Before the Israelites? Many different tribes.

Why do you assume they would be friends of the Amalekites if the Amalekites regularly attacked peaceful travelers? Would they not be more likely to be enemies, given that they occupied more fertile ground? I'm curious why you assume everyone who wasn't an Israelite were all best buds at the Pagan party. Perhaps they had a secret handshake.

Do you think it's justifiable to kill peaceful foreign travelers?

The Israelites were not peaceful travelers, they were conquerors intent on taking somebody's land, neighbors of the amalekites. Now, why do I assume the amalekites were friends with people living in the promised land? Because they attacked the Israelites for one, that suggests the amalekites were protecting someone if not themselves. Two, I doubt the amalekites were at war with everyone in the promised land. That means they were friends with some of those people, perhaps even allied, maybe even related. Regardless, if strangers showed up on your porch and wanted to walk thru your land so they could attack your neighbors and take their lands, you'd be a fool to invite them to be your new neighbors and you'd be complicit in genocide. If you told the strangers "no" and told them to leave and they didn't, you'd call or invent cops.

I said specifically that I could not expect them to follow Christian principles because they are not Christian.

I see, but you're talking about people following the orders of your god. Why did the golden rule replace those orders?

[Berzerker]

I've stated that Israel has a right to travel in peace and a right to live in peace in Israel. This right does not supercede the rights of others to live there

They invaded that land and slaughtered the people living there and told the amalekites to help them

[Ben Kenobi]

They invaded that land and slaughtered the people living there and told the amalekites to help them

What part of "Edom" is outside of Israel is not understood?

The Israelites were not peaceful travelers

Yes, they were peaceful travelers. Prior to the Amalekites, whom did they attack? Egypt whom they were fleeing as slaves? I should think that you would want to support escaped slaves fleeing captivity in the desert. They were neither rich nor powerful.

Because they attacked the Israelites for one, that suggests the amalekites were protecting someone if not themselves.

Given that they attacked peaceful foreigners passing through their land why would one assume good foreign relations with other nations? Logic would suggest they were most likely hostile with everyone, not just the Israelites who just happened to meet them.

Two, I doubt the amalekites were at war with everyone in the promised land.

They weren't in the promised land.

That means they were friends with some of those people

Given their hostility it is more likely they were enemies of outsiders which would explain their treatment of the Jews if another tribe had tried to conquer them. Which would imply longstanding hostility with neighboring nations, especially given their location in Edom which is a difficult area even now.

Regardless, if strangers showed up on your porch and wanted to walk thru your land so they could attack your neighbors and take their lands

You're in favor of shooting people who walk across your land?

If you told the strangers "no" and told them to leave and they didn't, you'd call or invent cops.

Would you try to kill them?

I see, but you're talking about people following the orders of your god. Why did the golden rule replace those orders?

That's a good question. Jesus talks about how the law was an imperfect reflection of his will to accommodate the Jews, and that the higher law of God had a different calling and a different understanding. This is why it was radical to a people accustomed to retaliating blow for blow.

[MRT144]

Curious that you regard citations of the Bible as authoritative, while at the same time professing that it's worthless.

Choose.

You regard them as authoritative or you're not a Christian. I'm not a Christian, you profess to be. Tell me where in the New Testament Jesus or anyone associated confirms an 'eye for an eye' or 'casting the first stone'. I really don't know scripture so you should offer support for your viewpoint that 'turning the other cheek' means a genocider should be genocided. Defend your own faith, moron.

[Ben Kenobi]

You regard them as authoritative or you're not a Christian.

If you're not a Christian, what's the point of me citing a source that you don't regard as authoritative? Wouldn't I just be wasting my time?

Defend your own faith, moron.

What is there to defend? You've said you don't regard Christ as important. I'd rather make an argument that you will find compelling rather than one that you do not.

As for my argument, I suggest you look up Margaret Sanger and the black genocide that she supported. Do you agree or disagree?

[Berzerker]

What part of "Edom" is outside of Israel is not understood?

Are they neighbors? Thats what I understand, I dont know where you got the idea I thought Edom was in the promised land.

Yes, they were peaceful travelers. Prior to the Amalekites, whom did they attack? Egypt whom they were fleeing as slaves? I should think that you would want to support escaped slaves fleeing captivity in the desert. They were neither rich nor powerful.

What would you do if strangers showed up at your house wanting to cross your land to kill your neighbors and move in next door? Call them peaceful travelers?

Given that they attacked peaceful foreigners passing through their land why would one assume good foreign relations with other nations? Logic would suggest they were most likely hostile with everyone, not just the Israelites who just happened to meet them.

If the amalekites were actually at war with everyone in the promise land, they'd likely welcome the israelites to invade their enemies. They didn't, so I assume they had friends there. Thats logic, Ben.

They weren't in the promised land.

You dont have to live in the promised land to be at war with people living in the promised land.

Given their hostility it is more likely they were enemies of outsiders which would explain their treatment of the Jews if another tribe had tried to conquer them. Which would imply longstanding hostility with neighboring nations, especially given their location in Edom which is a difficult area even now.

The Jews were strangers wanting help to invade the amalekites neighbors, thats hostile.

You're in favor of shooting people who walk across your land?

If they're going to kill my neighbors and move in next door? YES!

Would you try to kill them?

That would depend on my ability to stop them. At the very least I'd send word warning of the coming invasion.

That's a good question. Jesus talks about how the law was an imperfect reflection of his will to accommodate the Jews, and that the higher law of God had a different calling and a different understanding. This is why it was radical to a people accustomed to retaliating blow for blow.

It sounds like the custom came from god, but does that mean Jesus told the israelites to commit genocide?

[Aeson]

BK's position on migrants without visas is well documented. Mainly, use force to keep them out. If they happen to find their way in, kick them back out.

[MRT144]

If you're not a Christian, what's the point of me citing a source that you don't regard as authoritative? Wouldn't I just be wasting my time?



What is there to defend? You've said you don't regard Christ as important. I'd rather make an argument that you will find compelling rather than one that you do not.

As for my argument, I suggest you look up Margaret Sanger and the black genocide that she supported. Do you agree or disagree?

You're a coward and you know it. You won't waste your time searching for that which you know doesn't exist. There is no Christian justification for genocide but here you are digging in with non christian explanations. Can you at least admit you're not a very good Christian and you have a lot of room to improve. I'll leave you alone.

[kentonio]

My question is this. If your religion exactly follows your convictions, how is it any different from making yourself God?

Please describe which parts of the Catholic religion run contrary to your personal convictions. We'd hate to think you were making yourself god or anything.

[C0ckney]

Please describe which parts of the Catholic religion run contrary to your personal convictions. We'd hate to think you were making yourself god or anything.

i believe the part about loving one's fellow man would be a good place to start.

[Proteus_MST]

Ok. Of the presuppositions that leaves the question, why did God teach his principles to the Jews?

I don´t think he did ... I think the bible is just a propagandist work of humans ...
I subscribe to the theory that the bible was made by the work of Yahwist scribes long after the babylonian exile.
Which is, why they also dropped all indices of the rest of the former polytheist pantheon in which YHWH was just a god among others.
Actually, the morality of the old testament bible reflects exactly the morality you can find everywhere throughout all ancient tribes ... it is nothing special that you can only find in the jews ... or something where you would say that it can only be part of an eternal all loving god ...
which strengthens the assumption that the old testament is nothing but a collection of ancient mythology ... similar to the tales of the greek pantheon (like you can find in Homer, for example).
That I argue with biblical passages is just a concession to your belief that the bible is an accurate documentation of history.

How does one define, 'negative' and 'positive'? You're also assuming that suffering plays no role in redemption, which is contrary to Christian teachings.

I don´t need a supernatural explanation/justification for suffering in life.
The buddhists have the concept that a lot of suffering is brought upon ourselvs by ourselves ... which IMHO is a good concept.
I also don´t subscribe to the concept of "original sin" ... therefore I think that we are only resonsible for the sins we commit in our curent lives.

So what you're saying is that God is good except where he disagrees with you.

I don´t say the god of the bible is good ...
the stories in the old testament IMHO rather describe a personality that I wouldn´t want to meet (in human form) in real life.
He kills lots of people of his own folk just because they question their current leader (Moses) ...
he kills children via bears just because they call one of his prophets a bald-head
he tortures a man (Hiob) and all people around him just becaue he has a bet running
he orders genocides and the taking of sex-slaves.
and so on
Nope, definitely not my definition of "good"

What parts of the Christian faith would you keep?

Those that try to make life among humans better ... like the prohibition to stealing and killing.
Not the golden rule, because this could be taken by various groups as an "excuse" to commit Vendettas ...
your forefather killed one of our forefathers, therefore we will kill one of your family
(afterwards followed by the other family now having an excuse to kill, again, one of the other family and so on).

You're claiming that your morals are superior. Why would you attack other claims of moral superiority when they conflict with what you believe? IF the Christians are right then you have no cause to argue that your morals are in fact superior. IF you don't like the Christians doing it, why are you doing it to them? Just because you disagree with them doesn't mean that our beliefs are wrong.

My question is this. If your religion exactly follows your convictions, how is it any different from making yourself God?

I don´t think that defining your own morals is anything that make you divine.
I think, to the contrary, that it is the duty of all of us, to think about our own morals ... how our behavior affects others and so on.
The idea that you don´t have to think about / evaluate morals, because everything god (or one of his representatives on earth) orders is automatically good, no matter how evil an action may appear, IMHO is just a lazymans copout.

I also don´t think that my (or nowadays) morals are the Optimum that cannot be improved any further ...
but I definitely think that they are vastly superior to the morals depicted in the bible.

...

Yes, they were peaceful travelers. Prior to the Amalekites, whom did they attack? Egypt whom they were fleeing as slaves? I should think that you would want to support escaped slaves fleeing captivity in the desert. They were neither rich nor powerful.


...

Lets say a large group of muslims appears at the mexican-american border (perhaps 1 million [yes, the israelites may have numbered fewer people ... but the conquest of Canaan supposedly happened at a time when the whole of mankind just numbered around 10 million people ... so we have to adjust numbers for examples in nowadays time ])

So, this large group not only involves civilians, but also a large number of militia soldiers, armed with Ak-47s and RPG-7s and similar warpons.
(and yes, it bis obvious from the stories in the bible that the Israelites at the time weren´t just civilians, but also armed militia, else they wouldn´t have been able to resist the Amalekite attack )

All attempts to peacefully stop the muslim group at the border, or convince them to turn back have failed and they are in american soil, travelling northwards. They also couldn´t be convinced to cede their weapons at the border.
What should the US of A do?
Let them continue their travel northwards, as long as they don´t attack any US-Citizens?
Or stop them via the use of US soldiers?

Now think of a second scenario which is like scenario 1, but with an addition:
It is known that this group of muslims wants to travel northwards in order to invade Canada.
What should the US of A do in this case?

[loinburger]

Better question, if you believe genocide is wrong, why do you support abortion, given Margaret Sanger's affirmation of black genocide, and the abortion clinic as a crucial tool in achieving her goal?

I'm not Margaret Sanger so I don't know why you're bringing her up. If Margaret Sanger said that chemotherapy was genocide against cancer cells then I'd still support chemotherapy as a cancer treatment. If Margaret Sanger said that eating hamburgers was genocide against cows then I'd still eat hamburgers.

You're doing it right now. Whenever someone stands up for the Jews, there you are, arguing that the Jews deserved what they got. Why is what the Jews did relevant to the point, unless not all genocide is the same? Is it possible that they just deserved it?

You are the one who is applying a double standard. I've stated that genocide is unequivocally wrong, and you have failed to produce any of the mythical posts in which I've stated otherwise; on the contrary, you're fine with genocide as long as God orders it and/or it's the Jews who are committing it.

I've already stated that I don't believe that genocide is justified. I've also stated that I don't expect non Christians to abide by Christian teachings, Jews have Lex Talionis.

If you don't believe that genocide is justified, then why are you worshiping a god that ordered genocide?

[giblets]

Margaret Sanger didn't support black genocide.