- Joined
- 14 Mar 15
- Moves
- 29602
18 Jul 15
Originally posted by AppleChessA reasoned response to say i'm spouting an ignorant opinion and then telling me what i believed when i walked into this forum? A reasoned response to say that i hate Christianity because i dare question that genocide can be anything other than abhorrent, even though just a day or two ago i said religion 'could' be a beautiful thing?
Interesting that you call my post nonsense yet it is a very reasoned response and isn't really my own but rather that of many men and women far more educated than me.
It was these elements of your posts that i refer to as nonsense. (I would have elaborated at the time, if not for the lateness of the hour).
18 Jul 15
The post that was quoted here has been removedYes, well, when I wrote that post, it was meant 'tongue-in-cheek".
And actually, I expect the world-wide proportion of Christians to all other belief systems (including, and especially, "none" ) to decline every year, right up to the day of the Return of Christ.
18 Jul 15
Originally posted by Ghost of a DukeI happen to agree with AppleChess in his assessment of the Canaanite 'issue'. I've heard of the first book he mentions, but not the second, even though I've not read either of them.
A reasoned response to say i'm spouting an ignorant opinion and then telling me what i believed when i walked into this forum? A reasoned response to say that i hate Christianity because i dare question that genocide can be anything other than abhorrent, even though just a day or two ago i said religion 'could' be a beautiful thing?
It was these e ...[text shortened]... efer to as nonsense. (I would have elaborated at the time, if not for the lateness of the hour).
It's just unfortunate that he's not developed the art of tact that this forum sometimes requires for people of opposing opinions to communicate without a shouting match breaking out. But then, neither has Zahlanzi.
- Joined
- 14 Mar 15
- Moves
- 29602
Originally posted by SuzianneIndeed, and i suspected you might.
I happen to agree with AppleChess in his assessment of the Canaanite 'issue'. I've heard of the first book he mentions, but not the second, even though I've not read either of them.
It's just unfortunate that he's not developed the art of tact that this forum sometimes requires for people of opposing opinions to communicate without a shouting match breaking out. But then, neither has Zahlanzi.
My issue however was his assertion that one was intellectually blind and ignorant to hold to the view that genocide was abhorrent,without exploring the issue. I believe for example that torture is abhorrent and don't view myself as intellectually blind for not having read essays on counter arguments. - Also putting forward the argument that the views have come from people far cleverer that us doesn't hold water, as i'm sure there are people cleverer still who have studied the Canaanite issue at length and are still of the opinion that the genocide was abhorrent. Are they also intellectually blind? How does Applechess know my level of study on the issue? Why does he assume i come from a position of ignorance? Why does he conclude that i hate Christianity? (Both of which are untrue). - Perhaps he has simply misunderstood atheism.
Worth noting that the existence (and personification) of evil in world religions formed part of my dissertation, and even back then my views were not well received. (The dissertation was equivalent to 2 modules and the attained C grade resulted in my overall degree slipping to a 2.1). Indeed, my struggle with Christianity (*not hatred) boils down to those 3 main issues:
1. The existence of evil in the world (especially metaphysical evil beyond mans control)
2. An inconsistent God (especially when comparing the Old and New Testaments)
3. Biblical notions of hell etc that again seem incompatible with an all loving God.
I do apologize though to Applechess for the throw away 'nonsense' quip. As i say, i posted before going to bed and in reaction to being referred to as ignorant and (indirectly) intellectually blind.
18 Jul 15
1 edit
I don't have time to reply to this now, but I hope AC doesn't throw you off from a constructive discussion along these lines. I'll come back to this later today.
I do apologize though to Applechess for the throw away 'nonsense' quip. As i say, i posted before going to bed and in reaction to being referred to as ignorant and (indirectly) intellectually blind.
Fair enough. 🙂
18 Jul 15
Originally posted by Ghost of a DukeWhat if these Canaanites were reptilian people and it was necessary to wipe them out to prevent them contaminating the gene pool of normal humans. Would you believe that would be okay? If not, what would be the moral thing to do?
Indeed, and i suspected you might.
My issue however was his assertion that one was intellectually blind and ignorant to hold to the view that genocide was abhorrent,without exploring the issue. I believe for example that torture is abhorrent and don't view myself as intellectually blind for not having read essays on counter arguments. - Also putti ...[text shortened]... g to bed and in reaction to being referred to as ignorant and (indirectly) intellectually blind.
How to Spot the Reptilians Running the U.S. Government
http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/10/how-spot-reptilians-runing-us-government/354496/
- Joined
- 14 Mar 15
- Moves
- 29602
18 Jul 15
Originally posted by RJHindsYou do your camp no favours Mr Hinds.
What if these Canaanites were reptilian people and it was necessary to wipe them out to prevent them contaminating the gene pool of normal humans. Would you believe that would be okay? If not, what would be the moral thing to do?
How to Spot the Reptilians Running the U.S. Government
http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/10/how-spot-reptilians-runing-us-government/354496/
Look, as a 'non believer' i view all genocide the same. The problem with 'over intellectualizing' an issue is that it just takes you further away from it's basic reality, and in the case of genocide it's the annihilation of an entire race. (In this instance).
The one thing all genocide has in common is that the people doing the annihilating set out to dehumanize the ones they want to annihilate. By making them 'less than human' they believe this somehow justifies their actions. - I think i will always have a problem with that.
Originally posted by Ghost of a DukeUnder your deceived and distorted viewpoint the whole human race would be wiped out. That would be genocide for all races of people except for the Reptilian race. God had a different viewpoint that was not deceived and distorted. 😏
You do your camp no favours Mr Hinds.
Look, as a 'non believer' i view all genocide the same. The problem with 'over intellectualizing' an issue is that it just takes you further away from it's basic reality, and in the case of genocide it's the annihilation of an entire race. (In this instance).
The one thing all genocide has in common is that ...[text shortened]... believe this somehow justifies their actions. - I think i will always have a problem with that.
18 Jul 15
Originally posted by Suziannetell me more about how the children of the canaanites deserved to die. i never tire of hearing you say it.
I happen to agree with AppleChess in his assessment of the Canaanite 'issue'. I've heard of the first book he mentions, but not the second, even though I've not read either of them.
It's just unfortunate that he's not developed the art of tact that this forum sometimes requires for people of opposing opinions to communicate without a shouting match breaking out. But then, neither has Zahlanzi.
Originally posted by ZahlanziThink of them as a giant Reptilian race and you might be able to understand. 😏
tell me more about how the children of the canaanites deserved to die. i never tire of hearing you say it.
And the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, “Send men to spy out the land of Canaan, which I am giving to the children of Israel; from each tribe of their fathers you shall send a man, every one a leader among them.”
Then Moses sent them to spy out the land of Canaan, and said to them, “Go up this way into the South, and go up to the mountains, and see what the land is like: whether the people who dwell in it are strong or weak, few or many; whether the land they dwell in is good or bad; whether the cities they inhabit are like camps or strongholds; whether the land is rich or poor; and whether there are forests there or not. Be of good courage. And bring some of the fruit of the land.” Now the time was the season of the first ripe grapes.
Now they departed and came back to Moses and Aaron and all the congregation of the children of Israel in the Wilderness of Paran, at Kadesh; they brought back word to them and to all the congregation, and showed them the fruit of the land.
Then Caleb quieted the people before Moses, and said, “Let us go up at once and take possession, for we are well able to overcome it.”
But the men who had gone up with him said, “We are not able to go up against the people, for they are stronger than we.” And they gave the children of Israel a bad report of the land which they had spied out, saying, “The land through which we have gone as spies is a land that devours its inhabitants, and all the people whom we saw in it are men of great stature. There we saw the giants (the descendants of Anak came from the giants); and we were like grasshoppers in our own sight, and so we were in their sight.”
(Numbers 13:1-2, 17-20, 26, 30-33 NKJV)
- Joined
- 14 Mar 15
- Moves
- 29602
19 Jul 15
Originally posted by RJHinds
Think of them as a giant Reptilian race and you might be able to understand. 😏
[b]And the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, “Send men to spy out the land of Canaan, which I am giving to the children of Israel; from each tribe of their fathers you shall send a man, every one a leader among them.”
Then Moses sent them to spy out the land of Ca ...[text shortened]... our own sight, and so we were in their sight.”
(Numbers 13:1-2, 17-20, 26, 30-33 NKJV)As i said, 'de-humanizing' a group of people tends to go hand in hand with genocide. Your comparison therefore between the Canaanites and giant lizards is not surprising, though thoroughly disappointing.
Originally posted by Ghost of a DukeI did not say giant lizards. I said giant Reptilian people. The kind that eat men as grasshoppers. 😏
As i said, 'de-humanizing' a group of people tends to go hand in hand with genocide. Your comparison therefore between the Canaanites and giant lizards is not surprising, though thoroughly disappointing.
"...we were like grasshoppers in our own sight, and so we were in their sight.”
(Numbers 13:33)
Originally posted by Ghost of a DukeWhen I find some time I'll try to respond to this further.
Indeed, and i suspected you might.
My issue however was his assertion that one was intellectually blind and ignorant to hold to the view that genocide was abhorrent,without exploring the issue. I believe for example that torture is abhorrent and don't view myself as intellectually blind for not having read essays on counter arguments. - Also putti ...[text shortened]... g to bed and in reaction to being referred to as ignorant and (indirectly) intellectually blind.
I would graciously (if I can say it this way) that it is intellectually blind to equate the Canaanite 'Genocide' (per your post) as analogous to torture.
This analogy is so broken on multiple points that it doesn't even fit loosely.
My simple point was If you believe the Bible in its totality you will be hard pressed to argue God was in the wrong. Somehow it seems this point has been lost on you. If you don't agree with the Bible then yes, the Canaanite Genocide was egregious. I would also suggest one who holds this view has not carefully read the Bible.
I'm not calling you ignorant for your views, rather for your unwillingness to even exam contrary evidence seriously.
If I lack tact it is because I get tired of fanatics like wolfgang who, well, I'll leave that there. I actually tried to start this conversation off amiably-the ability to give and receive criticism is a high mark of academia. fyi, calling something 'nonsense' isn't giving criticism graciously. Rather, I feel you guys close the door to discussion before discussion even begins.
The reality of it is. I have a Masters in Exegetical Theology and am about to start my PhD in Exegetical Theology. I might be able to at least represent well to you guys the other side. Not asking you to agree but at least to be willing to discuss it amiably. I haven't sensed that from you guys.
If I'm wrong, I apologize. But I have felt from day one that if I am a conservative sounding Christian lets just throw mud instead of critically engage material. Rather, you have a chance to engage someone who might know this viewpoint well.
Case in point: exam this-
My issue however was his assertion that one was intellectually blind and ignorant to hold to the view that genocide was abhorrent,without exploring the issue.
If that is truly what I said then I would be intellectually blind and ignorant. But dissinformation seems to be a tool or at least severe misunderstanding. I never said that. I said, rather, it is intellectually blind and ignorant to not explore possibilities, NOT that it was intellectually blind and ignroant to hold to the view that gneocide was abhorrent.
This is, what we in academia call a straw man. You twist the argument or at least so grossely misunderstand me that I question your ability to discuss this (seriously).
Genocide is abhorrent on a human level. My contention is, maybe it isn't genocide as you and I think of genocide as in say Rwanda. Please engage what I say more carefully. If you truly thought that was what I was writing then we clearly did not start off on the same level of mutual respect regarding each other's comprehension ability.