[Rushy]

The only nation in the Middle East currently not fighting ISIS is Turkey.

[Rama Set]

A MUSLIM, 1, spoke out against. My, that's mighty white of him! I don't see them doing anything to stop it though. Until I see every Muslim in the United States lining up at recruiting stations to enter the military, and volunteering to go over there, until I see Muslims in the Middle East start sending armies to fight ISIS, until I start seeing Muslims in the Middle East starting to support Israel in its fight against Hamas (ISIS Lite) and Hezbollah, I don't buy the bullshit.

Well all it takes is one counter example to prove your judgement incorrect.  As pointed out, there are plenty of Muslims fighting against ISIS, as if fighting in a war is the only way to oppose something.

I oppose genocide myself.

Than you are disobeying your repugnant God, end of story.

I'm only saying that if we had lived in the Bronze Age, we would have thought differently, and you are no different than me. And don't pretend for a moment that you are. Quit the pie in the sky "Cumbaya" shit. Be real.

"Be real".

"Quit the pie in the sky 'Cumbaya' shit."

Is this your universities version of debating?

The fact of the matter is, that this is just an assertion that you cannot back up and means absolutely nothing to the debate.  Well done.

By the way, your God kills babies. lol!

[Yonah ben Amittai]

until I see Muslims in the Middle East start sending armies to fight ISIS

You know that most Iraqis figting IS are Muslims, right? As are the Jordanians, Arabs, Saudis, Kurds, Bahrainians...

When I see their troops on the ground, then I'll buy it.

A MUSLIM, 1, spoke out against. My, that's mighty white of him! I don't see them doing anything to stop it though. Until I see every Muslim in the United States lining up at recruiting stations to enter the military, and volunteering to go over there, until I see Muslims in the Middle East start sending armies to fight ISIS, until I start seeing Muslims in the Middle East starting to support Israel in its fight against Hamas (ISIS Lite) and Hezbollah, I don't buy the bullshit.

Well all it takes is one counter example to prove your judgement incorrect.  As pointed out, there are plenty of Muslims fighting against ISIS, as if fighting in a war is the only way to oppose something.

I oppose genocide myself.

Than you are disobeying your repugnant God, end of story.

I'm only saying that if we had lived in the Bronze Age, we would have thought differently, and you are no different than me. And don't pretend for a moment that you are. Quit the pie in the sky "Cumbaya" shit. Be real.

"Be real".

"Quit the pie in the sky 'Cumbaya' shit."

Is this your universities version of debating?

The fact of the matter is, that this is just an assertion that you cannot back up and means absolutely nothing to the debate.  Well done.

By the way, your God kills babies. lol!

Whatever. You are a schmuck. Whoever you want to blame for massacres of biblical proportions, you might as well admit that you would have engaged in them yourself, you sorry excuse for a human if I ever saw one.

[beardo]

By the way, your God kills babies. lol!

It's not bad as long as God does it.

[Yonah ben Amittai]

I have no sympathy for a people who committed human sacrifice. I have no sympathy for a people who were so wicked God himself deemed their destruction necessary. I don't understand why he deemed it so. It seems harsh. But shit happens, man. If it had not been them, they would have done it to us. So, given a choice, I'll take the former. That is what you losers are forgetting. If it had not been them, it would have been us. Given the two choices, what would you have done? There was NO third option. Think about it. Waah fuckin' Waah.

[DuckDodgers]

So we even know Moses was able to read and write?  I thought ancient royalty had scribes so they didn't have to do that stuff?

[Yonah ben Amittai]

Well, the argument has been won, just by virtue that we survived, they didn't, and the choice was clear. Us or them. No third option. So, rather than continue this line of conversation, I shall end it here. If you anything further to say on it, I suggest you do it elsewhere, because I have no further interest in discussing the matter.

Do you have intelligent questions I can answer?

Now that is an intelligent question. Royalty were educated. They didn't always write the records, but they knew how to read them. They were among the best educated in their world. They could also write, usually, although they employed people to do it professionally, of course, just as governments do today.

[Rushy]

You keep describing the things god does in the perspective of a human. I think you yourself are having trouble comprehending the sheer ability of a omnipotent being to do literally anything. Anything an omnipotent being does or causes to happen is because the being wanted that specific thing to happen. If millions died ala flooding, god wanted that to happen. It wasn't a "well I guess I have to do this because you made me do it."

The reason the god in the bible doesn't sound very omnipotent is because the bible is written by humans who made up solutions that make sense to a human.

[Tau]

Is there any meaningful difference between the jewish God and Hitler? Both demanded absolute deference, both were more than happy to order the extinction of multiple races through genocide and eugenics, and both felt that their people deserved land which did not belong to them.

Since Austria belonged to Bismark way back when, long before Hitler was even thought of, your last point is no point at all. Remember that after WWI, there was virtually nobody left in Europe. Anyone who came knew the land was theirs. If they chose to take it, they knew the land was theirs.

Nazi Mad Libs is fun.

Anyway, here's the real question: who's more genocidal/racist: Yaakov or Yahweh?

[Yonah ben Amittai]

No comment, except that Europe was well populated. Apparently your knowledge of population density is about as good as your knowledge of the Bible. Schmuck.

[Rushy]

Anyway, here's the real question: who's more genocidal/racist: Yaakov or Yahweh?

What if Yaakov is Yahweh and he is trying to justify all of his shitty moral decisions on an internet forum hoping people actually agree with him?

[Rama Set]

I have no sympathy for a people who committed human sacrifice. I have no sympathy for a people who were so wicked God himself deemed their destruction necessary. I don't understand why he deemed it so. It seems harsh. But shit happens, man. If it had not been them, they would have done it to us. So, given a choice, I'll take the former. That is what you losers are forgetting. If it had not been them, it would have been us. Given the two choices, what would you have done? There was NO third option. Think about it. Waah fuckin' Waah.

You still have not shown that Amalekites committed human sacrifice.  Your pre-emptive genocide is barbaric.  So much for your temple of solomon.

[Yonah ben Amittai]

You keep describing the things god does in the perspective of a human. I think you yourself are having trouble comprehending the sheer ability of a omnipotent being to do literally anything. Anything an omnipotent being does or causes to happen is because the being wanted that specific thing to happen. If millions died ala flooding, god wanted that to happen. It wasn't a "well I guess I have to do this because you made me do it."

The reason the god in the bible doesn't sound very omnipotent is because the bible is written by humans who made up solutions that make sense to a human.

I'm not having trouble with anything, although I suspect you are having issues with transference. I would encourage you to visit a psychologist about that.

God doesn't will anything bad to occur. Millions die in flooding because we live in a fallen world. Get over it.

I have no sympathy for a people who committed human sacrifice. I have no sympathy for a people who were so wicked God himself deemed their destruction necessary. I don't understand why he deemed it so. It seems harsh. But shit happens, man. If it had not been them, they would have done it to us. So, given a choice, I'll take the former. That is what you losers are forgetting. If it had not been them, it would have been us. Given the two choices, what would you have done? There was NO third option. Think about it. Waah fuckin' Waah.

You still have not shown that Amalekites committed human sacrifice.  Your pre-emptive genocide is barbaric.  So much for your temple of solomon.

QUOTE: "Moloch, also known as Molech, Molekh, Molok, Molek, Molock, Moloc, Melech, Milcom, or Molcom (representing Semitic מלך m-l-k, a Semitic root meaning "king") is the name of an ancient Ammonite god.[1] Moloch worship was practiced by the Canaanites, Phoenicians, and related cultures in North Africa and the Levant.

As a god worshipped by the Phoenicians and Canaanites, Moloch had associations with a particular kind of propitiatory child sacrifice by parents. Moloch figures in the Book of Deuteronomy and in the Book of Leviticus as a form of idolatry (Leviticus 18:21: "And thou shalt not let any of thy seed pass through the fire to Moloch"). In the Old Testament, Gehenna was a valley by Jerusalem, where apostate Israelites and followers of various Baalim and Caananite gods, including Moloch, sacrificed their children by fire (2 Chr. 28:3, 33:6; Jer. 7:31, 19:2–6)."

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moloch

Now if you don't look like a shlemiel.

As regards the Temple of Solomon, that was an irrelevant comment. Absence of evidence is not indication of no evidence. Grow up.

[Rushy]

God doesn't will anything bad to occur. Millions die in flooding because we live in a fallen world. Get over it.

God wills everything bad that occurs. If your life is painful, it is because god wanted it that way. At least, that's how it would be, if god existed.

[Rama Set]

I look like a "fool" because after several pages you finally got around to providing evidence?  Now, can you provide evidence from a source other than the bible considering the obvious and weighty bias your book holds for Canaanites?  From what the sources on the wiki pages say, there is only a "possibility of human sacrifice."  Nothing definite in the archaeological record.

I will point out now, that I am not using the lazy tactic you use of saying "It was the bronze age, you would have done it too!"  But I must say that on your view, how is human sacrifice any worse than the wholesale slaughter of infants who have not committed any sort of crime other than being born?

The Temple of Solomon was just a little dig at your propensity for claiming how much more civilized the Jews were than anyone else in the Bronze Age.  Something that does not seem to be borne out by your own historical record. 

[Yonah ben Amittai]

God doesn't will anything bad to occur. Millions die in flooding because we live in a fallen world. Get over it.

God wills everything bad that occurs. If your life is painful, it is because god wanted it that way. At least, that's how it would be, if god existed.

I recommend a few philosophy courses. You evidently haven't had too many. If your view of the universe is the simplistic, its no wonder you are operating on such a grade school level along with the other schmucks in here. My God.


While I'm at it, I'll just throw this out there. The reason that God came only to Moses is because man cannot usually see God's face and live. Moses was an exception to that. Why, I am not certain, although the reason might lie in his purity has a person. So that is another reason for not coming personally to all 2 million people at once. Perhaps not killing them all was something God deemed important?

I look like a "fool" because after several pages you finally got around to providing evidence?  Now, can you provide evidence from a source other than the bible considering the obvious and weighty bias your book holds for Canaanites?  From what the sources on the wiki pages say, there is only a "possibility of human sacrifice."  Nothing definite in the archaeological record.

You could have found that evidence yourself. If you are so incompetent as to not be able to use a computer as to make me do your research for you, then you are the fool. And the Wikipedia entry says nothing about possibilities. It simply says that there were associations with child sacrifice. Sounds pretty definite to me. Reread the entry.

I will point out now, that I am not using the lazy tactic you use of saying "It was the bronze age, you would have done it too!"  But I must say that on your view, how is human sacrifice any worse than the wholesale slaughter of infants who have not committed any sort of crime other than being born?

Not my problem, ultimately. That is simply the way things were handled. I might not like it, but that is the reality of things. Welcome to the real world, and not your "Cumbaya" fantasy land, which isn't even true today.

The Temple of Solomon was just a little dig at your propensity for claiming how much more civilized the Jews were than anyone else in the Bronze Age.  Something that does not seem to be borne out by your own historical record.

Given that the Temple of Solomon was 500 years later than Moses, and the Hebrews had gone from being a roving band of pastoral nomads to a settled Kingdom of power and influence, yes, they were FAR more civilised by then than just about anyone in Europe or Sub-Saharan Africa. So, again, you are advised to close your yap. You are starting to look like an ass-hat. 

[Snupes]

Moloch, also known as Molech, Molekh, Molok, Molek, Molock, Moloc, Melech, Milcom, or Molcom (representing Semitic מלך m-l-k, a Semitic root meaning "king") is the name of an ancient Ammonite god.

Oh yeah, they had a show about him, Molcom in the Middle, right?

But more seriously, please cut out the hostility. You can have a discussion like this without telling people they're ass-hats, idiots, fools, what have you.

[Rushy]

I recommend a few philosophy courses. You evidently haven't had too many. If your view of the universe is the simplistic, its no wonder you are operating on such a grade school level along with the other schmucks in here. My God.

You're just so much more advanced you can't explain how advanced you are. I thought that was my forum niche, not yours.

While I'm at it, I'll just throw this out there. The reason that God came only to Moses is because man cannot usually see God's face and live. Moses was an exception to that. Why, I am not certain, although the reason might lie in his purity has a person. So that is another reason for not coming personally to all 2 million people at once. Perhaps not killing them all was something God deemed important?

Once again you don't get that anything that an omnipotent being wants to happen, happens. If looking at god kills you, then god wanted that to be the way it is. Are you saying there is some magical set of laws that god has to obey? That doesn't sound very god-like to me.

[Yonah ben Amittai]

Moloch, also known as Molech, Molekh, Molok, Molek, Molock, Moloc, Melech, Milcom, or Molcom (representing Semitic מלך m-l-k, a Semitic root meaning "king") is the name of an ancient Ammonite god.

Oh yeah, they had a show about him, Molcom in the Middle, right?

Moloch in the Middle. Good one on you. That was funny.

But more seriously, please cut out the hostility. You can have a discussion like this without telling people they're ass-hats, idiots, fools, what have you.

I don't know how much of this thread you've actually read, but certain people (and they know who they are) have been displaying incredible amounts of obtuseness. At first I thought it was a failure to comprehend. Then I realised it was deliberate, and therefore a true fault, and as a result, sin, for which they will probably be adjudged guilty on the Day of Judgement, though it not my place to say that definitively. I am unsure if it is a deliberate attempt to be obtuse, or if it is indeed outright stupidity, but it is deliberate.

I recommend a few philosophy courses. You evidently haven't had too many. If your view of the universe is the simplistic, its no wonder you are operating on such a grade school level along with the other schmucks in here. My God.

You're just so much more advanced you can't explain how advanced you are. I thought that was my forum niche, not yours.

While I'm at it, I'll just throw this out there. The reason that God came only to Moses is because man cannot usually see God's face and live. Moses was an exception to that. Why, I am not certain, although the reason might lie in his purity has a person. So that is another reason for not coming personally to all 2 million people at once. Perhaps not killing them all was something God deemed important?

Once again you don't get that anything that an omnipotent being wants to happen, happens. If looking at god kills you, then god wanted that to be the way it is. Are you saying there is some magical set of laws that god has to obey? That doesn't sound very god-like to me.

that is simply untrue. God doesn't have to obey anything. But to violate his own laws would be to make himself not God. for example, could God make a married bachelor?

[Particle Person]

for example, could God make a married bachelor?[/size]

That's a nonsensical question, since the words "married bachelor" mean nothing when put together. It would be just as meaningful to ask if God could make a "UHuhfuhweiwpkwmdljf".