A Deep Theological Question

[Quantum Windbag]

I guess it follows that the absence of scriptures in which Jesus told us to use our consciences (instead of the Bible) as our moral guides doesn't really matter, since they could have totally been disregarded along with the rest of the scriptures anyway? The sheer genius of it all!

I am sure you can site all sorts of verses where Jesus told us to use the Bible.

Wait, you can't, because there aren't any. In fact, he specifically defended ignoring the laws when there was a higher purpose, like in Mathew 12.

At that time Jesus went through the grainfields on the Sabbath. His disciples were hungry and began to pick some heads of grain and eat them. 2 When the Pharisees saw this, they said to him, “Look! Your disciples are doing what is unlawful on the Sabbath.” 3 He answered, “Haven’t you read what David did when he and his companions were hungry? 4 He entered the house of God, and he and his companions ate the consecrated bread—which was not lawful for them to do, but only for the priests. 5 Or haven’t you read in the Law that the priests on Sabbath duty in the temple desecrate the Sabbath and yet are innocent? 6 I tell you that something greater than the temple is here. 7 If you had known what these words mean, ‘I desire mercy, not sacrifice,’[a] you would not have condemned the innocent. 8 For the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath.”

You don't know what you are talking about, yet you are insisting you know more about the Bible and being a Christian than I do.

Imagine that.

By any chance did you happen to catch the insignia on the tail-fin of the jumbo jet that just flew by directly over your head?

I suppose it's easier to miss the point entirely by simply leaving out some of the parts that sort of illuminate it?

Case in point:

... Or is there a scriptural basis, after all, for the idea of the primacy of conscience over your God's other inspired scribblings?

You see, referring to holy writ as a means to justify the rejection of basing one's code of ethics on holy writ is called an affirmation of possession of that which is expressly denied: namely a code of ethics based on holy writ.

Do you have a point other than continually demonstrating that you are completely wrong that Christians get their conscious from the Bible? Didn't you argue that Jesus got his from Scripture, and didn't I just totally blow you out of the water on that? If you really want me to take the time to completely blow you out of the water on every little point you make in an attempt to corner me into accepting your interpretation of the Bible I suggest you get used to disappointment.

 

[Capstone]

[...] Didn't you argue that Jesus got his [conscience] from Scripture, and didn't I just totally blow you out of the water on that?

No, that was the goofy strawman you tried to pin on me.

[...] If you really want me to take the time to completely blow you out of the water on every little point you make in an attempt to corner me into accepting your interpretation of the Bible I suggest you get used to disappointment.

Actually, I'm just as happy watching you walk away in silence with your tail between your legs.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

[...] Didn't you argue that Jesus got his [conscience] from Scripture, and didn't I just totally blow you out of the water on that?

No, that was the goofy strawman you tried to pin on me.

[...] If you really want me to take the time to completely blow you out of the water on every little point you make in an attempt to corner me into accepting your interpretation of the Bible I suggest you get used to disappointment.

Actually, I'm just as happy watching you walk away in silence with your tail between your legs.

Goofy strawman?

Can you explain how me saying you are arguing that Jesus, and, by extension, all Christians are solely guided by scripture is a straw man when you actually said it?

If your 'sense of right and wrong' doesn't come from the Bible (I.E. the Ten Commandments, the Beatitudes, the Pauline letters, ETC. have no bearing whatsoever on your personal code of ethics), yet you claim to be a Christian nonetheless, then not only do you represent one of the tiniest minorities in history ...but I suspect that a large majority of mainstream Christians would argue that you're not a Christian at all.

Anyway, if you're not among the vast majority of self-proclaimed Christians who DO look to the scriptures for moral guidance, then I wasn't referring to you in the first place.

And this came a bit later.

I guess it follows that the absence of scriptures in which Jesus told us to use our consciences (instead of the Bible) as our moral guides doesn't really matter, since they could have totally been disregarded along with the rest of the scriptures anyway? The sheer genius of it all!

Or is there a scriptural basis, after all, for the idea of the primacy of conscience over your God's other inspired scribblings?

Piece of advice, if you don't want people taking your actual words and using them against you, don't say anything.

 

[Capstone]

Goofy strawman?

Can you explain how me saying you are arguing that Jesus, and, by extension, all Christians are solely guided by scripture is a straw man when you actually said it?

That's just it, Dipthong; I never said any such thing.

If your [as in Quantum Windbag's, not Christ's] 'sense of right and wrong' doesn't come from the Bible (I.E. the Ten Commandments, the Beatitudes, the Pauline letters, ETC. have no bearing whatsoever on your personal code of ethics) [Note that I defined the term in single quotations as something beyond the mere conscience proper, since I see the 'sense of right and wrong' as something that incorporates one's doctrines as factors in decision-making -- which is NOT to say the doctrines are the "sole" factors.] yet you claim to be a Christian nonetheless, then not only do you represent one of the tiniest minorities in history ...but I suspect that a large majority of mainstream Christians would argue that you're not a Christian at all.

Anyway, if you're not among the vast majority of self-proclaimed Christians who DO look to the scriptures for moral guidance [And again, looking to the scriptures for moral guidance doesn't preclude the innate sense of right and wrong as a factor in decision-making. The two can and do co-exist.], then I wasn't referring to you in the first place.

*Bracketed interpolation added*

Nowhere in the quote above did I address Christ's conscience (or even his sense of right and wrong), hence there could have been no "extension" to the consciences of Christians.

As for this:

I guess it follows that the absence of scriptures in which Jesus told us to use our consciences (instead of the Bible) as our moral guides doesn't really matter, since they could have totally been disregarded along with the rest of the scriptures anyway? The sheer genius of it all!

Or is there a scriptural basis, after all, for the idea of the primacy of conscience over your God's other inspired scribblings?

Only someone as dense as you could have missed the bulge in my cheek, as I prompted your ensuing self-refuting appeal to the scriptures.

Piece of advice, if you don't want people taking your actual words and using them against you, don't say anything.

And here's a piece of advice for you, when you have to resort to misstating your opponent's position in order to refute it, you might just be refuting a strawman.

 

[Derideo_Te]

In 1 Samuel 15:2-3 when it says:

"This is what the LORD of Heaven's Armies has declared: I have decided to settle accounts with the nation of Amalek for opposing Israel when they came from Egypt. Now go and completely destroy the entire Amalekite nation--men, women, children, babies, cattle, sheep, goats, camels, and donkeys."

...did any of the women who were slaughtered have fetuses growing inside of them?

I've studied the bible for over 60 years and don't recall a Biblical reference which would specifically answer your question; however, it is almost statistically certain that at least some women were pregnant. In the overall scheme of things, I suppose it didn't matter a tinker's damn. The order was to kill the mothers and “infant and suckling” (KJV). Since infants and suckling were disposable, and killing the mother kills the fetus as well, the death of each fetus was an insignificant part of the murderous plot. The rational for such brutality is best explained by Josephus:

"He betook himself to slay the women and the children, and thought he did not act therein either barbarously or inhumanly; first, because they were enemies whom he thus treated, and, in the next place, because it was done by the command of God, whom it was dangerous not to obey" (Flavius Josephus, Antiquites Judicae, Book VI, Chapter 7).

I'm not sure where you're going with this. I cannot relate it to the present status of abortion in the USA, nor can I relate it to Christians who, for the most part, have abandoned much of the Old Testament in favor of the “new and better” New Testament. The Old testament called for the killing of all those who worshiped other Gods (Deuteronomy 13:6-10), but I have not encountered a single Christian who believes that nonsense is applicable today.

It is good that there are some that view the New Testament God as being evolved beyond the corrupt nature ascribed in the Old Testament--in spite of the widely held belief that they are one unchangeable being.

From OT wholesale slaughter to just picking off a couple of individuals in the NT followed at the end by dire warnings of more whole slaughter to come if everyone doesn't worship him?

 

[onecut39]

In 1 Samuel 15:2-3 when it says:

"This is what the LORD of Heaven's Armies has declared: I have decided to settle accounts with the nation of Amalek for opposing Israel when they came from Egypt. Now go and completely destroy the entire Amalekite nation--men, women, children, babies, cattle, sheep, goats, camels, and donkeys."

...did any of the women who were slaughtered have fetuses growing inside of them?

I've studied the bible for over 60 years and don't recall a Biblical reference which would specifically answer your question; however, it is almost statistically certain that at least some women were pregnant. In the overall scheme of things, I suppose it didn't matter a tinker's damn. The order was to kill the mothers and “infant and suckling” (KJV). Since infants and suckling were disposable, and killing the mother kills the fetus as well, the death of each fetus was an insignificant part of the murderous plot. The rational for such brutality is best explained by Josephus:

"He betook himself to slay the women and the children, and thought he did not act therein either barbarously or inhumanly; first, because they were enemies whom he thus treated, and, in the next place, because it was done by the command of God, whom it was dangerous not to obey" (Flavius Josephus, Antiquites Judicae, Book VI, Chapter 7).

I'm not sure where you're going with this. I cannot relate it to the present status of abortion in the USA, nor can I relate it to Christians who, for the most part, have abandoned much of the Old Testament in favor of the “new and better” New Testament. The Old testament called for the killing of all those who worshiped other Gods (Deuteronomy 13:6-10), but I have not encountered a single Christian who believes that nonsense is applicable today.

It is good that there are some that view the New Testament God as being evolved beyond the corrupt nature ascribed in the Old Testament--in spite of the widely held belief that they are one unchangeable being.

How does god, the perfect and eternal, evolve?

 

[Agit8r]

I've studied the bible for over 60 years and don't recall a Biblical reference which would specifically answer your question; however, it is almost statistically certain that at least some women were pregnant. In the overall scheme of things, I suppose it didn't matter a tinker's damn. The order was to kill the mothers and “infant and suckling” (KJV). Since infants and suckling were disposable, and killing the mother kills the fetus as well, the death of each fetus was an insignificant part of the murderous plot. The rational for such brutality is best explained by Josephus:

"He betook himself to slay the women and the children, and thought he did not act therein either barbarously or inhumanly; first, because they were enemies whom he thus treated, and, in the next place, because it was done by the command of God, whom it was dangerous not to obey" (Flavius Josephus, Antiquites Judicae, Book VI, Chapter 7).

I'm not sure where you're going with this. I cannot relate it to the present status of abortion in the USA, nor can I relate it to Christians who, for the most part, have abandoned much of the Old Testament in favor of the “new and better” New Testament. The Old testament called for the killing of all those who worshiped other Gods (Deuteronomy 13:6-10), but I have not encountered a single Christian who believes that nonsense is applicable today.

It is good that there are some that view the New Testament God as being evolved beyond the corrupt nature ascribed in the Old Testament--in spite of the widely held belief that they are one unchangeable being.

How does god, the perfect and eternal, evolve?

Well, obviously what Jesus taught was better than what was ascribed to Yahweh. Heck, any person who has not participated in genocide is far more moral--or to put it another way; more evolved.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

In 1 Samuel 15:2-3 when it says:

"This is what the LORD of Heaven's Armies has declared: I have decided to settle accounts with the nation of Amalek for opposing Israel when they came from Egypt. Now go and completely destroy the entire Amalekite nation--men, women, children, babies, cattle, sheep, goats, camels, and donkeys."

...did any of the women who were slaughtered have fetuses growing inside of them?

I've studied the bible for over 60 years and don't recall a Biblical reference which would specifically answer your question; however, it is almost statistically certain that at least some women were pregnant. In the overall scheme of things, I suppose it didn't matter a tinker's damn. The order was to kill the mothers and “infant and suckling” (KJV). Since infants and suckling were disposable, and killing the mother kills the fetus as well, the death of each fetus was an insignificant part of the murderous plot. The rational for such brutality is best explained by Josephus:

"He betook himself to slay the women and the children, and thought he did not act therein either barbarously or inhumanly; first, because they were enemies whom he thus treated, and, in the next place, because it was done by the command of God, whom it was dangerous not to obey" (Flavius Josephus, Antiquites Judicae, Book VI, Chapter 7).

I'm not sure where you're going with this. I cannot relate it to the present status of abortion in the USA, nor can I relate it to Christians who, for the most part, have abandoned much of the Old Testament in favor of the “new and better” New Testament. The Old testament called for the killing of all those who worshiped other Gods (Deuteronomy 13:6-10), but I have not encountered a single Christian who believes that nonsense is applicable today.

It is good that there are some that view the New Testament God as being evolved beyond the corrupt nature ascribed in the Old Testament--in spite of the widely held belief that they are one unchangeable being.

It's fascinating to see that some don't live in the real world, but a world of fantasy that imagines that divine holiness is something to be trifled with. You are deceived. You do not grasp the full reality of sin, the staggeringly destructive reach of evil. The God of the Old and the New Testaments are One and the Same. The brutal torture and crucifixion of Christ is the punishment we deserved.

 

[Derideo_Te]

I've studied the bible for over 60 years and don't recall a Biblical reference which would specifically answer your question; however, it is almost statistically certain that at least some women were pregnant. In the overall scheme of things, I suppose it didn't matter a tinker's damn. The order was to kill the mothers and “infant and suckling” (KJV). Since infants and suckling were disposable, and killing the mother kills the fetus as well, the death of each fetus was an insignificant part of the murderous plot. The rational for such brutality is best explained by Josephus:

"He betook himself to slay the women and the children, and thought he did not act therein either barbarously or inhumanly; first, because they were enemies whom he thus treated, and, in the next place, because it was done by the command of God, whom it was dangerous not to obey" (Flavius Josephus, Antiquites Judicae, Book VI, Chapter 7).

I'm not sure where you're going with this. I cannot relate it to the present status of abortion in the USA, nor can I relate it to Christians who, for the most part, have abandoned much of the Old Testament in favor of the “new and better” New Testament. The Old testament called for the killing of all those who worshiped other Gods (Deuteronomy 13:6-10), but I have not encountered a single Christian who believes that nonsense is applicable today.

It is good that there are some that view the New Testament God as being evolved beyond the corrupt nature ascribed in the Old Testament--in spite of the widely held belief that they are one unchangeable being.

It's fascinating to see that some don't live in the real world, but a world of fantasy that imagines that divine holiness is something to be trifled with. You are deceived. You do not grasp the full reality of sin, the staggeringly destructive reach of evil. The God of the Old and the New Testaments are One and the Same. The brutal torture and crucifixion of Christ is the punishment we deserved.

"We deserved"? You might deserve such treatment but with all due respect you weren't appointed judge, jury and executioner of everyone else and neither was your bloodthirsty deity for that matter. He is only your judge if you believe him to be. The rest of us know better than to allow ourselves to be judged by something so lacking in basic morals that he orders someone to murder their own child and has no compunction about ordering the deaths of innocent women and children.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

It is good that there are some that view the New Testament God as being evolved beyond the corrupt nature ascribed in the Old Testament--in spite of the widely held belief that they are one unchangeable being.

It's fascinating to see that some don't live in the real world, but a world of fantasy that imagines that divine holiness is something to be trifled with. You are deceived. You do not grasp the full reality of sin, the staggeringly destructive reach of evil. The God of the Old and the New Testaments are One and the Same. The brutal torture and crucifixion of Christ is the punishment we deserved.

"We deserved"? You might deserve such treatment but with all due respect you weren't appointed judge, jury and executioner of everyone else and neither was your bloodthirsty deity for that matter. He is only your judge if you believe him to be. The rest of us know better than to allow ourselves to be judged by something so lacking in basic morals that he orders someone to murder their own child and has no compunction about ordering the deaths of innocent women and children.

With all due respect? Who appointed me judge?

I stated a fact about the human race. I know the truth, for it is self-evident. Only the very foolish, naive or hypocritical deny the reality of man’s wretched nature. By the way, the classical liberalism of the Anglo-American tradition of individual liberty is premised on this understanding of human nature. Are you a collectivist, a leftist, a statist, that is to say, a busybody? Are you exposing a susceptibility to a certain mindset conditioned by years of thoughtlessly imbibing the sentiments of politically correct blather?

You are mistaken, Sir. It is not I who am guilty of self-righteousness as you suggest. . . .

So you are without sin, without fault, without evil? You would be the very first person I've ever run into who was. My, my, you're way ahead of me, for I myself am among the chief of sinners.

He is only your judge if you believe him to be.

Either He is or He is not. Period. Neither your belief nor mine is of any effect in that regard. He is your judge whether you think so or not, and you will stand before Him in judgment. Make no mistake about that.

The rest of us know better than to allow ourselves to be judged by something so lacking in basic morals that he orders someone to murder their own child and has no compunction about ordering the deaths of innocent women and children.

The rest of you are fools and liars and hypocrites, pretending to be better than the rest of us, indeed, pretending to be above God Himself. For example, in this sentiment we see a breathtakingly arrogant and dishonest revision of the reality, for Jesus is the Christ Who willingly gave His life for you. He is the incarnate God Almighty. Your Creator. He took your place so that you need not suffer the wages of sin that all of mankind deserve.

I am reminded of what Jesus said to the Pharisees who claimed to be without sin: "If you were blind, you would not be guilty of sin; but since you say you can see, your guilt remains" (John 9:41).

 

[Derideo_Te]

It's fascinating to see that some don't live in the real world, but a world of fantasy that imagines that divine holiness is something to be trifled with. You are deceived. You do not grasp the full reality of sin, the staggeringly destructive reach of evil. The God of the Old and the New Testaments are One and the Same. The brutal torture and crucifixion of Christ is the punishment we deserved.

"We deserved"? You might deserve such treatment but with all due respect you weren't appointed judge, jury and executioner of everyone else and neither was your bloodthirsty deity for that matter. He is only your judge if you believe him to be. The rest of us know better than to allow ourselves to be judged by something so lacking in basic morals that he orders someone to murder their own child and has no compunction about ordering the deaths of innocent women and children.

With all due respect? Who appointed me judge?

I stated a fact about the human race. I know the truth, for it is self-evident. Only the very foolish, naive or hypocritical deny the reality of man’s wretched nature. By the way, the classical liberalism of the Anglo-American tradition of individual liberty is premised on this understanding of human nature. Are you a collectivist, a leftist, a statist, that is to say, a busybody? Are you exposing a susceptibility to a certain mindset conditioned by years of thoughtlessly imbibing the sentiments of politically correct blather?

You are mistaken, Sir. It is not I who am guilty of self-righteousness as you suggest. . . .

So you are without sin, without fault, without evil? You would be the very first person I've ever run into who was. My, my, you're way ahead of me, for I myself am among the chief of sinners.

He is only your judge if you believe him to be.

Either He is or He is not. Period. Neither your belief nor mine is of any effect in that regard. He is your judge whether you think so or not, and you will stand before Him in judgment. Make no mistake about that.

The rest of us know better than to allow ourselves to be judged by something so lacking in basic morals that he orders someone to murder their own child and has no compunction about ordering the deaths of innocent women and children.

The rest of you are fools and liars and hypocrites, pretending to be better than the rest of us, indeed, pretending to be above God Himself. For example, in this sentiment we see a breathtakingly arrogant and dishonest revision of the reality, for Jesus is the Christ Who willingly gave His life for you. He is the incarnate God Almighty. Your Creator. He took your place so that you need not suffer the wages of sin that all of mankind deserve.

I am reminded of what Jesus said to the Pharisees who claimed to be without sin: "If you were blind, you would not be guilty of sin; but since you say you can see, your guilt remains" (John 9:41).

Thank you for tacitly conceding that you cannot defend the immoral bloodthirsty nature of your deity who is unfit to stand in judgment of even someone as "wretchedly humble" as you profess yourself to be. Have a nice day.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

"We deserved"? You might deserve such treatment but with all due respect you weren't appointed judge, jury and executioner of everyone else and neither was your bloodthirsty deity for that matter. He is only your judge if you believe him to be. The rest of us know better than to allow ourselves to be judged by something so lacking in basic morals that he orders someone to murder their own child and has no compunction about ordering the deaths of innocent women and children.

With all due respect? Who appointed me judge?

I stated a fact about the human race. I know the truth, for it is self-evident. Only the very foolish, naive or hypocritical deny the reality of man’s wretched nature. By the way, the classical liberalism of the Anglo-American tradition of individual liberty is premised on this understanding of human nature. Are you a collectivist, a leftist, a statist, that is to say, a busybody? Are you exposing a susceptibility to a certain mindset conditioned by years of thoughtlessly imbibing the sentiments of politically correct blather?

You are mistaken, Sir. It is not I who am guilty of self-righteousness as you suggest. . . .

So you are without sin, without fault, without evil? You would be the very first person I've ever run into who was. My, my, you're way ahead of me, for I myself am among the chief of sinners.



Either He is or He is not. Period. Neither your belief nor mine is of any effect in that regard. He is your judge whether you think so or not, and you will stand before Him in judgment. Make no mistake about that.

The rest of us know better than to allow ourselves to be judged by something so lacking in basic morals that he orders someone to murder their own child and has no compunction about ordering the deaths of innocent women and children.

The rest of you are fools and liars and hypocrites, pretending to be better than the rest of us, indeed, pretending to be above God Himself. For example, in this sentiment we see a breathtakingly arrogant and dishonest revision of the reality, for Jesus is the Christ Who willingly gave His life for you. He is the incarnate God Almighty. Your Creator. He took your place so that you need not suffer the wages of sin that all of mankind deserve.

I am reminded of what Jesus said to the Pharisees who claimed to be without sin: "If you were blind, you would not be guilty of sin; but since you say you can see, your guilt remains" (John 9:41).

Thank you for tacitly conceding that you cannot defend the immoral bloodthirsty nature of your deity who is unfit to stand in judgment of even someone as "wretchedly humble" as you profess yourself to be. Have a nice day.

Stow it. I laugh at this bit of sophistry. The truth flies light years beyond the altitude of your naive and sophomoric understanding. I wouldn’t waste the time on a sociopath like you. You would just go on lying: pearls before swine, as it were. Further, your veiled self-righteousness, hypocrisy and lies were utterly exposed and routed, and you know it.

 

[Derideo_Te]

With all due respect? Who appointed me judge?

I stated a fact about the human race. I know the truth, for it is self-evident. Only the very foolish, naive or hypocritical deny the reality of man’s wretched nature. By the way, the classical liberalism of the Anglo-American tradition of individual liberty is premised on this understanding of human nature. Are you a collectivist, a leftist, a statist, that is to say, a busybody? Are you exposing a susceptibility to a certain mindset conditioned by years of thoughtlessly imbibing the sentiments of politically correct blather?

You are mistaken, Sir. It is not I who am guilty of self-righteousness as you suggest. . . .

So you are without sin, without fault, without evil? You would be the very first person I've ever run into who was. My, my, you're way ahead of me, for I myself am among the chief of sinners.



Either He is or He is not. Period. Neither your belief nor mine is of any effect in that regard. He is your judge whether you think so or not, and you will stand before Him in judgment. Make no mistake about that.



The rest of you are fools and liars and hypocrites, pretending to be better than the rest of us, indeed, pretending to be above God Himself. For example, in this sentiment we see a breathtakingly arrogant and dishonest revision of the reality, for Jesus is the Christ Who willingly gave His life for you. He is the incarnate God Almighty. Your Creator. He took your place so that you need not suffer the wages of sin that all of mankind deserve.

I am reminded of what Jesus said to the Pharisees who claimed to be without sin: "If you were blind, you would not be guilty of sin; but since you say you can see, your guilt remains" (John 9:41).

Thank you for tacitly conceding that you cannot defend the immoral bloodthirsty nature of your deity who is unfit to stand in judgment of even someone as "wretchedly humble" as you profess yourself to be. Have a nice day.

Stow it. I laugh at this bit of sophistry. The truth flies light years beyond the altitude of your naive and sophomoric understanding. I wouldn’t waste the time on a sociopath like you. You would just go on lying: pearls before swine, as it were. Further, your veiled self-righteousness, hypocrisy and lies were utterly exposed and routed, and you know it.

It never ceases to astound how those who profess to be Christians are the first to denigrate others when they cannot defend their own deity's documented bloodlust.

 

[Agit8r]

Are you saying we should just kill everyone who gets pregnant? Or are you specifically saying we should wipe Islam off the face of the planet? Maybe you are arguing that abortion is actually punishment for the sins of prior generations. I really don't know what point you are trying to make, especially since there is nothing either deep or theological about your question.

Fundies always find some way to justify the quote by acting as if the children, babies, etc had no rights. I thought perhaps by bringing the fetuses into it that perhaps I could humanize the victims for the fundy mind.

Care to point out any place I ever argued they do not have rights?

If they have rights, then the quote cannot be justified. Still people try, by saying how evil the adult Amalekites were. This is what I'm talking about. Either people have basic unalienable rights, OR they can be alienated by revelation. It cannot be both ways.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Fundies always find some way to justify the quote by acting as if the children, babies, etc had no rights. I thought perhaps by bringing the fetuses into it that perhaps I could humanize the victims for the fundy mind.

Care to point out any place I ever argued they do not have rights?

If they have rights, then the quote cannot be justified. Still people try, by saying how evil the adult Amalekites were. This is what I'm talking about. Either people have basic unalienable rights, OR they can be alienated by revelation. It cannot be both ways.

So under that scenario only the "chosen people" have any "God given rights". Everyone else (including all fundamentalist Christians) only have whatever rights "We the people" are willing to uphold for ourselves and each other.

 

[Agit8r]

Care to point out any place I ever argued they do not have rights?

If they have rights, then the quote cannot be justified. Still people try, by saying how evil the adult Amalekites were. This is what I'm talking about. Either people have basic unalienable rights, OR they can be alienated by revelation. It cannot be both ways.

So under that scenario only the "chosen people" have any "God given rights". Everyone else (including all fundamentalist Christians) only have whatever rights "We the people" are willing to uphold for ourselves and each other.

While we are on the subject, the idea of a "chosen people" is racist as hell.

 

[Capstone]

If they have rights, then the quote cannot be justified. Still people try, by saying how evil the adult Amalekites were. This is what I'm talking about. Either people have basic unalienable rights, OR they can be alienated by revelation. It cannot be both ways.

So under that scenario only the "chosen people" have any "God given rights". Everyone else (including all fundamentalist Christians) only have whatever rights "We the people" are willing to uphold for ourselves and each other.

While we are on the subject, the idea of a "chosen people" is racist as hell.

The Master Race reincarnated.

 

[tipofthespear]

If they have rights, then the quote cannot be justified. Still people try, by saying how evil the adult Amalekites were. This is what I'm talking about. Either people have basic unalienable rights, OR they can be alienated by revelation. It cannot be both ways.

So under that scenario only the "chosen people" have any "God given rights". Everyone else (including all fundamentalist Christians) only have whatever rights "We the people" are willing to uphold for ourselves and each other.

While we are on the subject, the idea of a "chosen people" is racist as hell.

with regards to the last comment in the quotation above (I'm not arguing about the Amalekites, will leave that up to the two of you), have you not set apart a "people?" Have you not set apart those who believe as you, think as you, agree with you to be apart/above those who don't? By your own statement, does this suggest that you are "racist as hell?"

Just wondering............for everyone should know that "chosen" simply means "set apart."