23 Jul 15
Originally posted by AppleChessyour first paragraph is nonsense. i explained to you (because you seem to be confused) what the definition of genocide is. by its definition, god engaged in genocide. period.
I disagree. If that was all it was (an amoral concept that merely was descriptive but did not contain any prescriptive nature) then you wouldn't be asking this, 'is genocide less horrible if it is done by god.' You are assuming by asking the question a moral standard. Which, I agree there is. Yet, you just tried in your post to define it functionally only ...[text shortened]... our response. Really, I am. You are getting very much into studies that I have pursued and love.
the morality of a concept comes after we understand what said concept is. we decide if it is moral or not. we have decided that genocide is evil.
you know what? i think you simply don't like the word genocide. i will adress the issue like i did before on this subject (suzianne and the robbie also don't like that word). you probably don't like murder or kill so i won't use them either
god engaged in the systematical and deliberate unalive-ing of a group of people. first during the flood when he killed almost all of mankind and during the invasion of canaan.
people were systematically and deliberately unalived by god or on god's orders. men, women and children. if a human did so much deliberate unaliveing, you would call him evil. you wouldn't, not even for a second, think "hey, i wonder what his reason was for unaliveing so many people, i need to know that reason before labeling his acts evil"
so if god did this, why wouldn't he be evil? it's not like we can do anything to stop him other than call him on his evil behavior.
the canaanites supposedly unalived a lot of people in the name of their god(s) and were called evil because of this. why aren't the israelites evil for unaliveing so many people in the name of THEIR god?
23 Jul 15
Originally posted by RJHinds"However, if I became convinced that the real God of the Holy Bible wanted me to kill some little children, I would believe He must have a good reason for it and would obey Him."
I would first question that this god is actually the antichrist or Satan, since I know Christ loves all the little children of the world. However, if I became convinced that the real God of the Holy Bible wanted me to kill some little children, I would believe He must have a good reason for it and would obey Him.
I remember from Genesis that Abram was co ...[text shortened]... e obeyed God, his name was changed to Abraham and his faith was counted to him as righteousness.
there you go. wanted you to say it clearly. wanted everyone to see you saying it.
if god commanded you to, you would kill children.
you know what the difference between you and me is? i wouldn't.
i follow god (the real one) and his teachings because they are just and kind. if they weren't, i hope i would have the strength to just refuse to follow him. i hope i would have the strength to just go to whatever punishment such a monster would give me rather than murder children. or do whatever other evil act he asked of me.
"I remember from Genesis that Abram was commanded to sacrifice his own son"
abe failed that test. the god of love tested abe to see if he would do a heinous act if the right someone asked him to. to his horror, that psychopath was willing to kill his own son. the commandment "thou shalt not kill" doesn't end with "unless i, or my priests, or my prophets ask you to.
23 Jul 15
Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
I think a troll is a kind of monster, and bearing in mind you just stated (elsewhere) that you would kill children if told to by God, that you are better suited to that label.
I was referring to an Internet troll who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll
But what you are doing could also just be considered spamming.
23 Jul 15
2 edits
Originally posted by ZahlanziYou better read Genesis again because you are WRONG. Abram passed that test and the only reason he did not sacrifice his only son was that the LORD stayed his hand once God saw Abram would not keep his son from Him and then provided a ram caught in a thicket to be used as a replacement sacrifice.
"However, if I became convinced that the real God of the Holy Bible wanted me to kill some little children, I would believe He must have a good reason for it and would obey Him."
there you go. wanted you to say it clearly. wanted everyone to see you saying it.
if god commanded you to, you would kill children.
you know what the difference between you an ...[text shortened]... ment "thou shalt not kill" doesn't end with "unless i, or my priests, or my prophets ask you to.
This was to serve as an example of what God would be willing to do to save us in the future.
- Joined
- 14 Mar 15
- Moves
- 29602
23 Jul 15
Originally posted by RJHindsOh come on, seriously?
But what you are doing could also just be considered spamming.[/b]
You have the audacity to accuse anyone of spamming when you are the most prolific poster of repetitive flip-flops ever in the history of the internet. (And that's excusing your never ending, and never watched, youtube links). Sometimes you just cut and paste the same sentence into multiple threads, which i guess is 'lazy spamming.'
23 Jul 15
Originally posted by Ghost of a DukeYou don't watch my Youtube videos? No wonder you are not learning anything.
Oh come on, seriously?
You have the audacity to accuse anyone of spamming when you are the most prolific poster of repetitive flip-flops ever in the history of the internet. (And that's excusing your never ending, and never watched, youtube links). Sometimes you just cut and paste the same sentence into multiple threads, which i guess is 'lazy spamming.'
Yes, I admit that I make mistakes sometimes and may forget that I have already posted something. But I claim old age as an excuse for my short-comings, so what is your excuse?
- Joined
- 14 Mar 15
- Moves
- 29602
23 Jul 15
1 edit
Originally posted by RJHindsThe other day (14th July) you posted the same thing in 4 concurrent threads. Was that really down to memory loss?
You don't watch my Youtube videos? No wonder you are not learning anything.
Yes, I admit that I make mistakes sometimes and may forget that I have already posted something. But I claim old age as an excuse for my short-comings, so what is your excuse?
And seriously dude, no one watches your videos.
Originally posted by ZahlanziIt is not nonsense. If you aren't educated or intelligent enough to see the sense behind it I won't waste time with you.
your first paragraph is nonsense. i explained to you (because you seem to be confused) what the definition of genocide is. by its definition, god engaged in genocide. period.
the morality of a concept comes after we understand what said concept is. we decide if it is moral or not. we have decided that genocide is evil.
you know what? i think you s ...[text shortened]... of this. why aren't the israelites evil for unaliveing so many people in the name of THEIR god?
Obviously you aren't smart enough to see-
Genocide really is both an indicative and imperative (descriptive and prescriptive). And If genicide was only an indicative as you imply....you cannot arrive at an imperative (ought, morality) from an indicative (function, description). The morality of a concept does not come after. Is that how you approach the word rape? Incest? That argument is flawed fundamentally from the start. You really could do better.
Go ahead and don't use the word. It won't change it. Just because you don't use the word but you still describe it is the same thing.
Hence, calling it genicide is wrong. Your starting place is all wrong. Genocide implies a pejorative. It's not merely a functional term. How this logic that Chritopher Hitchens and Bertrand Russell and C.S. Lewis and Gould accepted is lost on you is odd.
I'm not sure what I find more appalling. Your cheap insults or lack of erudition.
But why do I waste my time with you. I'm beginning to wonder if you have any education at all...seriously. In secular academic environments you would far be on the losing side based just off logic. I think you just can't stand this. Come to grips with it and quit reaching for poor arguments and use real logic for once man.
I'll continue to discuss with moonbus or ghost of duke. At least these are constructive.
Your understanding and reading of the Old Testament is amusing. I'll hand you that. You are what we call, 'a poor reader'. You foment and troll and misapply context and meaning. I doubt you read it in a manner where you subject yourself to the author/s. All good reading requires we subject our mind to the mind of the author. It appears you approach it with your mind supreme in your own view.
23 Jul 15
Originally posted by AppleChessI have been watching this debate unfold, and was really looking forward to some good thoughts. However, it has become clear that wording has caused many issues. AppleChess will not realize that genocide (the word) is NOT the issue. Zahlanzi has asked you a very simple question, in which you will NOT answer because of the wording.
It is not nonsense. If you aren't educated or intelligent enough to see the sense behind it I won't waste time with you.
Obviously you aren't smart enough to see-
Genocide really is both an indicative and imperative (descriptive and prescriptive). And [b]If genicide was only an indicative as you imply....you cannot arrive at an imperative (ough ...[text shortened]... man.
I'll continue to discuss with moonbus or ghost of duke. At least these are constructive.[/b]
If God ordered the 'killing, murder, genocide, or whatever" of a certain people......is it wrong? When in this debate did the commandment of 'thou shall not kill' come into play? It seems clear to me, that AppleChess has a LOT more explaining to do. But won't....because in human terms......god cannot be defended by his actions.
23 Jul 15
Originally posted by RJHindsthat's why he failed. because he was psychotic enough to kill. god saw just how insane his favorite human is.
You better read Genesis again because you are WRONG. Abram passed that test and the only reason he did not sacrifice his only son was that the LORD stayed his hand once God saw Abram would not keep his son from Him and then provided a ram caught in a thicket to be used as a replacement sacrifice.
This was to serve as an example of what God would be willing to do to save us in the future.
Originally posted by AppleChessplease, throw more fancy words together without any sense whatsoever. rjhinds is too stupid to realize they mean nothing, and the others already heard you say that maybe genocide is not so evil after all.
It is not nonsense. If you aren't educated or intelligent enough to see the sense behind it I won't waste time with you.
Obviously you aren't smart enough to see-
Genocide really is both an indicative and imperative (descriptive and prescriptive). And [b]If genicide was only an indicative as you imply....you cannot arrive at an imperative (ough ...[text shortened]... man.
I'll continue to discuss with moonbus or ghost of duke. At least these are constructive.[/b]
i defined genocide as the systematic and deliberate destruction of a group of people. god did that in the OT. i claimed the systematic and deliberate destruction of a group of people is evil. two simple observations that you ranted on like a stoned highschooler that discovered a half ruined philosophy book in the public toilet.
is genocide NOT what i said?
is that concept NOT evil?
we use evil often, but this is not the "kicking puppies is evil" kind. the one open for debate. the morality of this subject is beyond debate. you cannot find any circumstance in which genocide is a grey subject. it is evil. period.
so i ask again, what dafuq is wrong with you?
24 Jul 15
Originally posted by AppleChess"go kill everyone, do not let anyone live. kill the men, women and children"
Your understanding and reading of the Old Testament is amusing. I'll hand you that. You are what we call, 'a poor reader'. You foment and troll and misapply context and meaning. I doubt you read it in a manner where you subject yourself to the author/s. All good reading requires we subject our mind to the mind of the author. It appears you approach it with your mind supreme in your own view.
please, put this in fukin context for me.
"All good reading requires we subject our mind to the mind of the author. "
except absolute crap. and these verses are repulsive crap. i don't empathize with the writer. i don't imagine, even for one moment, that maybe those canaanite children had it coming.
Originally posted by ZahlanziIf your last statement is true, then I shouldn't take your posts seriously either....
"go kill everyone, do not let anyone live. kill the men, women and children"
please, put this in fukin context for me.
"All good reading requires we subject our mind to the mind of the author. "
except absolute crap. and these verses are repulsive crap. i don't empathize with the writer. i don't imagine, even for one moment, that maybe those canaanite children had it coming.