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

[Proteus_MST]

I've never seen an atheist condemn the Amalekites. Which puzzles me. If you're a humanist, it would disgust me what they did.

Lets see ...
The Amalekites attacked the Israelites when they thought they were weak. They were beaten back because the israelite military was stronger than they expected (or because YHWH was on the Israelites side ... whatever interpretation you might prefer)

The Israelites later attacked the Amalekites ... they were victorious and then began to mercilessly kill everyone of the Amalekite tribe no matter how young and/or helpless s/he was, or how much s/he pleaded for his/her life.

You tell me ... what is the greater atrocity? A military attack, or the slaughtering of a whole ethnic group after a m ilitary victory?

For me the atrocity that the israelites commited overshadows anything the Amalekites did.
To put it into perspective of WW2 (as you are the one who brings it up):
The allied troops (both, on the western and the eastern front) also commited atrocities.
They shot combaytants who already had surrendered, shot civilians and, in case of the russians, they commited mass rapes on the civilian population.
But all this was overshadowed by the atrocities that were commited in germany, by the attempted systematic genocide on the jews (but also the mass murder on olther population groups, for example homosexuals, handicappeed persons or sinthi and roma)

That's precisely how the handwave defense works, fwiw. Also used by holocaust deniers in the exact same way. You're saying that unless the translator explicitly uses the word 'genocide' that it doesn't count as genocide. Which is a curious position because you also believe that language doesn't have objective meaning.

If I remember correctly the bible also doesn´t use the word genocide for the actions of the Israelites on the Amalekite tribe ... but it precisely describes what was ordered (by YHWH) and obviously done ... i.e. slaughtering every living person of the Amalekite tribe, no matter what age and gender ... which precisely fits into the term "genocide".

You won´t find any action that fits into the term "genocide" for the Amalekites. You only find 2 things:
1. A failed attack on the Israelites when they were resting, which resulted in tghe rout of the Amalekite troops after a long combat action
2. A successful attack together with the canaanites, where the Israelites were beaten back out of the country inhabited by the Amalekites and Canaanites (and which, from its description, sounds like a military action aimed at border defense (i.e. preventing the entry of the Israelites into the Canaanite and Amalekite country))

Also it seems to me like you don´t know all too much about holocaust deniers

[Berzerker]

I don't see the rationale for the fixation with what the Jews have done from humanists.

the amalekites are long gone, we're allied with the Jews and their god

[Ben Kenobi]

That's because you're retarded.

Interesting. I would suspect if you inverted the names that you'd come to the same conclusion that the Jews were horrible evil people.

[Sava]

No. Because he's not retarded.

[Ben Kenobi]

The Amalekites attacked the Israelites when they thought they were weak. They were beaten back because the israelite military was stronger than they expected (or because YHWH was on the Israelites side ... whatever interpretation you might prefer)

They attacked a smaller people who had sought free passage through their territory, in the desert, where if the Jews lost, they would be destroyed. Since water and access to it is so important. That's the part you miss. There's a reason why the Israelites sought passage, because this was the only way they could successfully travel. They decided that it was better to try to exterminate the Jews than provide passage.

what is the greater atrocity? A military attack, or the slaughtering of a whole ethnic group after a m ilitary victory?

Once again, you're arguing that what the Amalekites did was not genocide. Which is my point. As an atheist I can't see how one justifies what they did to the Jews. I was one. I read through these passages and it's not escaped my notice, then as now, that the Jews are always attacked but nobody mentions the Amalekites and what they did. Never seen any atheist ever admit that. Why? Why all the fixation on the Jews?

For me the atrocity that the israelites commited overshadows anything the Amalekites did.

Why?

But all this was overshadowed by the atrocities that were commited in germany, by the attempted systematic genocide on the jews (but also the mass murder on olther population groups, for example homosexuals, handicappeed persons or sinthi and roma)

Do you believe a nation that is attacked in war is permitted to defend themselves?

If I remember correctly the bible also doesn´t use the word genocide for the actions of the Israelites on the Amalekite tribe

Which is reinforcing my exact point. Thank you. Unless that exact word is used you don't believe it qualifies. Which is exactly the same argument made by holocaust deniers. IF they avoid the genocide label, it's not genocide.

What do you think happens when a small tribe is attacked while travelling in the desert by a larger tribe?

Also it seems to me like you don´t know all too much about holocaust deniers

Enough that I'm familiar with their arguments and why.

[Ben Kenobi]

No. Because he's not retarded.

People who are willing to sift through the bible to find justifications to hate the Jews but don't acknowledge was was done to them with the similar tenacity strike me as odd that they consider themselves humanists. Not all atheists are humanists.

[Proteus_MST]

They attacked a smaller people who had sought free passage through their territory, in the desert, where if the Jews lost, they would be destroyed. Since water and access to it is so important. That's the part you miss. There's a reason why the Israelites sought passage, because this was the only way they could successfully travel. They decided that it was better to try to exterminate the Jews than provide passage.

Once again, you're arguing that what the Amalekites did was not genocide. Which is my point. As an atheist I can't see how one justifies what they did to the Jews. I was one. I read through these passages and it's not escaped my notice, then as now, that the Jews are always attacked but nobody mentions the Amalekites and what they did. Never seen any atheist ever admit that. Why? Why all the fixation on the Jews?

Why?

Because the bible is about the Israelites, to be more exactly about the Israelites under the leadership of YHWH.
The bible also is seen by many believers (especially of the fundamental christian kind), to have to be taken literally ... to be read like a history book.

That the bible is about the israelites isn´t really important ... it is more important that they were led by YHWH/God/Allah or whatever name people give HIM worldwide ... if the bible were about the germans led by YHWH/God/Allah, I would comdemn the actions of the germans instead

Well, from an eternal divine being (who claims to be the creator and master of all humans) one would expect a little bit superior morals.
Instead one finds actions commited and ordered by this god within the bible that every morally not blind person living today would comdemn as clear atrocity.
That this god then still is taken as a moral compass by many people living today ... called a "loving god" and among christian fundamentalist circles it often even is argued that, without believing in god, there can be no moral behavior, strikes me for this reason as absurd

Do you believe a nation that is attacked in war is permitted to defend themselves?

A nation that is attacked is permitted to defend itself ... a nation that is attacked is also permitted to occupy the country.
But their right to self defense endcs when it comes to genocide on their attackers.
Nothing ever morally justifies killing everyone, including small children and sucklings (not to forget their cattle)

Which is reinforcing my exact point. Thank you. Unless that exact word is used you don't believe it qualifies. Which is exactly the same argument made by holocaust deniers. IF they avoid the genocide label, it's not genocide.

What do you think happens when a small tribe is attacked while travelling in the desert by a larger tribe?

For example, that they are driven away back tro the territory outside of the state borders the state claims for itself ... as it was done in the other instance I mentioned (where Canaanites and Amalekites were victorious asnd drive the israelites out of the Canaaanite and Amalekite territory)

Fact is ... the case of genocide described in the bible was not commited by the Amalekites, no matter how much you turn and twist it.

(something which btw. is more akin to holocaust deniers ... i.e. that they have clear proof (for example photos of the concentration camps) and then try to turn and twist this proof so that it fits into their world view, where the germans weren´t the bad guys but rather the poor innocent victims, who were unjustly branded by allied propaganda )

[Berzerker]

People who are willing to sift through the bible to find justifications to hate the Jews but don't acknowledge was was done to them with the similar tenacity strike me as odd that they consider themselves humanists. Not all atheists are humanists.

I dont think anyone here hates Jews, much less based on what happened over 3,000 years ago... But when their god is held up as the pinnacle of morality? No thanks... If it was the amalekites who wiped the Jews out and we were allied with them and their god? I wouldn't applaud them either and I'd laugh when people told me about their superior morality.

[Sava]

BK is antisemitic

[Ben Kenobi]

Well, from an eternal divine being (who claims to be the creator and master of all humans) one would expect a little bit superior morals.

Why is this? Such presupposes four things.

1. There is an eternal divine being known as God that existed 3000 years ago and exists now.
2. Said God has established a covenant with a group of people here on earth.
3. Said God has a specific moral code which he taught and instructed this group of people.
4. The Old Testament is an accurate portrayal of the relationship between God and this group of people.

You're an atheist. Why would you presuppose any of these things to be true?

[Ben Kenobi]

If it was the amalekites who wiped the Jews out and we were allied with them and their god? I wouldn't applaud them either and I'd laugh when people told me about their superior morality.

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.

[Aeson]

That's because your book is retarded.

[Berzerker]

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.

Weren't there amalekites in the promised land? If these people saw the israelites and heard of their plan to conquer this promised land, wouldn't that make them the defenders?

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.

no golden rule in your book?

[Proteus_MST]

Why is this? Such presupposes four things.

1. There is an eternal divine being known as God that existed 3000 years ago and exists now.
2. Said God has established a covenant with a group of people here on earth.
3. Said God has a specific moral code which he taught and instructed this group of people.
4. The Old Testament is an accurate portrayal of the relationship between God and this group of people.

You're an atheist. Why would you presuppose any of these things to be true?

Well, I am not actually an atheist ... 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. Religions are helpful if they help yourself grow spiritually (in this I am close to the unitarian universalist).

However ... and here we come to the core of the problem:
Religions also can be a problem ... and that is, as soon as the religion negatively affects the mental and/or physical well-being and growth of other members of society ... or (within limits) their capacity to become happy.
Examples for this would be the campaigns of certain parts of christianity against homosexual marriages and against teaching of the theory of evolution in the classroom.

And it is examples like these, which usually is connected to those christian campaigners pointing out their "moral superiority because of their faith", that let it appear extremly important to me to fight against these claims of a moral superiority, on basis of their own holy book.

Or to sum it up:
Religion = good ... if you use it for your own spiritiual growth
Religion = bad ... if you use it to negatiely affect society

(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.)

[The Mad Monk]

"Do you have a flag?"

EDDIE IZZARD APPROVES.