Secular families are ethical families

[Czernobog]

You asked when Amalek first appeared. I said as much, with the quote. You claimed the Amalekites we're animal fuckers, I pointed out the only reference to that. You insist there is a biblical reference, but haven't offered it - imagine that. Methinks me smells the distinct odor of bullshit. You asked where Amalek was from. I told you, and even told you who his parents were. Meanwhile you have yet to justify the genocide called for in your vaunted scriptures.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

First you Linked to the Amalek reference that was irreverent until I corrected you.
And now to show what an ignoramus you are in regards to the bestiality context...
Leviticus 18 / Hebrew - English Bible / Mechon-Mamre
Read it, especially verse 23, and eat sh!t, you phony.
These verses describe why God wants the nations of Canaan gone or dead...they were pure evil.

After re-reading, that's an awfully big stretch. So, your saying that the Amalekites literally went down the entire laundry list of every single thing that God doesn't like, and said, as a race of people, yeah, let's do that?

You are, literally, the first person I have ever heard tie verse two of chapter 18 to every command that followed thereafter.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

No stretch al all...God was acting as prosecuting attorney and explaining to the Children of Israel why they would have to exterminate the inhabitants of the land.
Do you actually think of bunch of Chassidim are going to exterminate millions of people without being commanded to do so by God?
God had to convince the Jews of the righteousness of eliminating evil.

Except that in that same verse, he also painted the Egyptians with the same brush, which means they, too, would have been guilty of each, and every one of those offenses, as a society. The problem is that we have records of the Egyptian society, and that is simply not the case. They did not engage in cultural bestiality, nor incest, nor societal homosexuality, nor any of the other "abominations" that are listed in the subsequent verses, and chapters. As such, why are we to assume that the Amalekites were guilty of all of these things, as a society, when the Egyptians were not, except as a means to justify genocide.

Further, even if the society were guilty of all of them, that still does not justify genocide. Sorry. There is no crime, no matter how widespread, that justifies killing children, and infants.

Anyone who can justify killing children, and infants, for. Any. Reason has lost any moral high ground when ever discussing such moral, and ethical issues such as euthanasia, or abortion.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

 

[Indeependent]

[
So you admit you haven't read a proper translation and in context treatment of Iyov.
That's a start.

I also admire atheists for admitting they think everyone else is an idiot when they nothing about what they're criticizing.
The attitude convinces me that atheists don't even know anything what they believe in.

I know plenty about the bible. I used to be a believer.
I read Ding's link: "Our Sages reveal to us that ultimately there is an approach which can help us constructively accept our own misfortunes and suffering, however they make it clear that no absolute solution is available. Let us be patient in our investigations and all the more so in our conclusions. Let us have the humility and integrity to recognize and accept our own human limitations. After all, we have not the prophetic powers of Moshe nor the wisdom of Solomon and even they could not uncover the answer. It is crucial to realize that our limitations in understanding does not mean that suffering is without reason or plan. Rabbi Moshe Chaim Luzzato explains in his book Daas Tevunos that part of our reward in the world to come will be that G-d will reveal to us the meaning of every bit of pain and suffering that we experienced in our life times."

IOW, "we have no idea either, but we believe. and so should you"
To which I say, "good on ya"..

Sure you were.
My typical, and thankfully, few encounters with ideologues, goes like this...
Ideologue...I'm an ideologue and if you don't agree with me you're stupid.
Me...OK, let's have a discussion.
Ideologue...We can't because I'm don't know squat about the issue.
Me...Have a nice life!

 

[Indeependent]

Well, well. It looks like religion really isn't necessary to raise ethical children. According to an article for the LA Times, Vern L Bengtson, a professor at USC who has been doing a generational longitudinal study of families, has added secular families to his studies in recent years, when he discovered that non-religious demographics were growing. His findings are quite enlightening:

Many non-religious parents were more coherent and passionate about their ethical principles than some of the ‘religious’ parents in our study. The vast majority appeared to live goal-filled lives characterised by moral direction and sense of life having a purpose.

...non-religious family life is replete with its own sustaining moral values and enriching ethical precepts. Chief among those: rational problem solving, personal autonomy, independence of thought, avoidance of corporal punishment, a spirit of ‘questioning everything’ and, far above all, empathy.

For secular people, morality is predicated on one simple principle: empathetic reciprocity, widely known as the Golden Rule. Treating other people as you would like to be treated. It is an ancient, universal ethical imperative. And it requires no supernatural beliefs.

The results of such secular child-rearing are encouraging. Studies have found that secular teenagers are far less likely to care what the ‘cool kids’ think, or express a need to fit in with them, than their religious peers. When these teens mature into ‘godless’ adults, they exhibit less racism than their religious counterparts, according to a 2010 Duke University study. Many psychological studies show that secular grownups tend to be less vengeful, less nationalistic, less militaristic, less authoritarian and more tolerant, on average, than religious adults.​

So, it seems that we finally have actual data to dispel the myth that religion is necessary in order to instill ethical moral decision-making skills.

A Moral compass and ethics are two different things.
What's their moral compass and what is their set of ethics regarding the various issues in their lives?

Since "Christians" will tell you they are 'not perfect, just forgiven', they believe they can lie, cheat, steal, kill, rape and on and on. Then, because they believe they will still go to heaven, they can do it all over again tomorrow and just get forgiven again. And again ...


Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com

And that's the problem with Christianity; it's not a religion of behavior.
An Orthodox Jew who commits a crime knows they committed a crime.

 

[Indeependent]

You asked when Amalek first appeared. I said as much, with the quote. You claimed the Amalekites we're animal fuckers, I pointed out the only reference to that. You insist there is a biblical reference, but haven't offered it - imagine that. Methinks me smells the distinct odor of bullshit. You asked where Amalek was from. I told you, and even told you who his parents were. Meanwhile you have yet to justify the genocide called for in your vaunted scriptures.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

First you Linked to the Amalek reference that was irreverent until I corrected you.
And now to show what an ignoramus you are in regards to the bestiality context...
Leviticus 18 / Hebrew - English Bible / Mechon-Mamre
Read it, especially verse 23, and eat sh!t, you phony.
These verses describe why God wants the nations of Canaan gone or dead...they were pure evil.

After re-reading, that's an awfully big stretch. So, your saying that the Amalekites literally went down the entire laundry list of every single thing that God doesn't like, and said, as a race of people, yeah, let's do that?

You are, literally, the first person I have ever heard tie verse two of chapter 18 to every command that followed thereafter.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

No stretch al all...God was acting as prosecuting attorney and explaining to the Children of Israel why they would have to exterminate the inhabitants of the land.
Do you actually think of bunch of Chassidim are going to exterminate millions of people without being commanded to do so by God?
God had to convince the Jews of the righteousness of eliminating evil.

Except that in that same verse, he also painted the Egyptians with the same brush, which means they, too, would have been guilty of each, and every one of those offenses, as a society. The problem is that we have records of the Egyptian society, and that is simply not the case. They did not engage in cultural bestiality, nor incest, nor societal homosexuality, nor any of the other "abominations" that are listed in the subsequent verses, and chapters. As such, why are we to assume that the Amalekites were gyiltybof all of these things, as a society, when the Egyptians we're not, except as a means to justify genocide.

Further, even if the society were guilty of all of them, that still does not justify genocide. Sorry. There is no crime, no matter how widespread, that justifies killing children, and infants.

Anyone who can justify killing children, and infants, for. Any. Reason has lost any moral high ground when ever discussing such moral, and ethical issues such as euthanasia, or abortion.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Neither Egypt not the Canaanites are painted as primitive savages by the Torah.
In fact, they all indulged in whatever technological advances they could conjure up.

God has an infinite outlook on existence.
You have your opinion based upon your genetics and environment; the same for me.
Yet you think you have the right call someone an idiot for siding with God's infinite view of existence.

 

[Czernobog]

You asked when Amalek first appeared. I said as much, with the quote. You claimed the Amalekites we're animal fuckers, I pointed out the only reference to that. You insist there is a biblical reference, but haven't offered it - imagine that. Methinks me smells the distinct odor of bullshit. You asked where Amalek was from. I told you, and even told you who his parents were. Meanwhile you have yet to justify the genocide called for in your vaunted scriptures.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

First you Linked to the Amalek reference that was irreverent until I corrected you.
And now to show what an ignoramus you are in regards to the bestiality context...
Leviticus 18 / Hebrew - English Bible / Mechon-Mamre
Read it, especially verse 23, and eat sh!t, you phony.
These verses describe why God wants the nations of Canaan gone or dead...they were pure evil.

After re-reading, that's an awfully big stretch. So, your saying that the Amalekites literally went down the entire laundry list of every single thing that God doesn't like, and said, as a race of people, yeah, let's do that?

You are, literally, the first person I have ever heard tie verse two of chapter 18 to every command that followed thereafter.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

No stretch al all...God was acting as prosecuting attorney and explaining to the Children of Israel why they would have to exterminate the inhabitants of the land.
Do you actually think of bunch of Chassidim are going to exterminate millions of people without being commanded to do so by God?
God had to convince the Jews of the righteousness of eliminating evil.

Except that in that same verse, he also painted the Egyptians with the same brush, which means they, too, would have been guilty of each, and every one of those offenses, as a society. The problem is that we have records of the Egyptian society, and that is simply not the case. They did not engage in cultural bestiality, nor incest, nor societal homosexuality, nor any of the other "abominations" that are listed in the subsequent verses, and chapters. As such, why are we to assume that the Amalekites were gyiltybof all of these things, as a society, when the Egyptians we're not, except as a means to justify genocide.

Further, even if the society were guilty of all of them, that still does not justify genocide. Sorry. There is no crime, no matter how widespread, that justifies killing children, and infants.

Anyone who can justify killing children, and infants, for. Any. Reason has lost any moral high ground when ever discussing such moral, and ethical issues such as euthanasia, or abortion.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Neither Egypt not the Canaanites are painted as primitive savages by the Torah.
In fact, they all indulged in whatever technological advances they could conjure up.

God has an infinite outlook on existence.
You have your opinion based upon your genetics and environment; the same for me.
Yet you think you have the right call someone an idiot for siding with God's infinite view of existence.

I'm sorry. You might wanna go read verse 3 again. The Egyptians, the Canaanites, and the Amalekites are all lumped together as a group. He doesn't even name the Amalekites, specifically. He just calls them those "…in the land of Canaan".

"3 You shall not do as they do in the land of Egypt, where you lived, and you shall not do as they do in the land of Canaan, to which I am bringing you."

So, yes, he is painting them with the same brush. Either Egypt is guilty of offending all of the following proscriptions, or none of them are.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

 

[Czernobog]

You asked when Amalek first appeared. I said as much, with the quote. You claimed the Amalekites we're animal fuckers, I pointed out the only reference to that. You insist there is a biblical reference, but haven't offered it - imagine that. Methinks me smells the distinct odor of bullshit. You asked where Amalek was from. I told you, and even told you who his parents were. Meanwhile you have yet to justify the genocide called for in your vaunted scriptures.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

First you Linked to the Amalek reference that was irreverent until I corrected you.
And now to show what an ignoramus you are in regards to the bestiality context...
Leviticus 18 / Hebrew - English Bible / Mechon-Mamre
Read it, especially verse 23, and eat sh!t, you phony.
These verses describe why God wants the nations of Canaan gone or dead...they were pure evil.

After re-reading, that's an awfully big stretch. So, your saying that the Amalekites literally went down the entire laundry list of every single thing that God doesn't like, and said, as a race of people, yeah, let's do that?

You are, literally, the first person I have ever heard tie verse two of chapter 18 to every command that followed thereafter.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

No stretch al all...God was acting as prosecuting attorney and explaining to the Children of Israel why they would have to exterminate the inhabitants of the land.
Do you actually think of bunch of Chassidim are going to exterminate millions of people without being commanded to do so by God?
God had to convince the Jews of the righteousness of eliminating evil.

Except that in that same verse, he also painted the Egyptians with the same brush, which means they, too, would have been guilty of each, and every one of those offenses, as a society. The problem is that we have records of the Egyptian society, and that is simply not the case. They did not engage in cultural bestiality, nor incest, nor societal homosexuality, nor any of the other "abominations" that are listed in the subsequent verses, and chapters. As such, why are we to assume that the Amalekites were gyiltybof all of these things, as a society, when the Egyptians we're not, except as a means to justify genocide.

Further, even if the society were guilty of all of them, that still does not justify genocide. Sorry. There is no crime, no matter how widespread, that justifies killing children, and infants.

Anyone who can justify killing children, and infants, for. Any. Reason has lost any moral high ground when ever discussing such moral, and ethical issues such as euthanasia, or abortion.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Neither Egypt not the Canaanites are painted as primitive savages by the Torah.
In fact, they all indulged in whatever technological advances they could conjure up.

God has an infinite outlook on existence.
You have your opinion based upon your genetics and environment; the same for me.
Yet you think you have the right call someone an idiot for siding with God's infinite view of existence.

I didn't say idiot. I said immoral. Genocide is immoral, I do not care if it is a man, demigod, or god that orders it.

If a man orders it, I will tell him to fuck off. If it is a supernatural being, then it is a supernatural being to whom I will refuse to offer my allegiance, and will have no moral respect for anyone who does.

You are clearly not an idiot. You are clearly intelligent, and well educated. You also support evil.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

 

[Indeependent]

First you Linked to the Amalek reference that was irreverent until I corrected you.
And now to show what an ignoramus you are in regards to the bestiality context...
Leviticus 18 / Hebrew - English Bible / Mechon-Mamre
Read it, especially verse 23, and eat sh!t, you phony.
These verses describe why God wants the nations of Canaan gone or dead...they were pure evil.

After re-reading, that's an awfully big stretch. So, your saying that the Amalekites literally went down the entire laundry list of every single thing that God doesn't like, and said, as a race of people, yeah, let's do that?

You are, literally, the first person I have ever heard tie verse two of chapter 18 to every command that followed thereafter.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

No stretch al all...God was acting as prosecuting attorney and explaining to the Children of Israel why they would have to exterminate the inhabitants of the land.
Do you actually think of bunch of Chassidim are going to exterminate millions of people without being commanded to do so by God?
God had to convince the Jews of the righteousness of eliminating evil.

Except that in that same verse, he also painted the Egyptians with the same brush, which means they, too, would have been guilty of each, and every one of those offenses, as a society. The problem is that we have records of the Egyptian society, and that is simply not the case. They did not engage in cultural bestiality, nor incest, nor societal homosexuality, nor any of the other "abominations" that are listed in the subsequent verses, and chapters. As such, why are we to assume that the Amalekites were gyiltybof all of these things, as a society, when the Egyptians we're not, except as a means to justify genocide.

Further, even if the society were guilty of all of them, that still does not justify genocide. Sorry. There is no crime, no matter how widespread, that justifies killing children, and infants.

Anyone who can justify killing children, and infants, for. Any. Reason has lost any moral high ground when ever discussing such moral, and ethical issues such as euthanasia, or abortion.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Neither Egypt not the Canaanites are painted as primitive savages by the Torah.
In fact, they all indulged in whatever technological advances they could conjure up.

God has an infinite outlook on existence.
You have your opinion based upon your genetics and environment; the same for me.
Yet you think you have the right call someone an idiot for siding with God's infinite view of existence.

I'm sorry. You might wanna go read verse 3 again. The Egyptians, the Canaanites, and the Amalekites are all lumped together as a group. He doesn't even name the Amalekites, specifically. He just calls them those "…in the land of Canaan".

"3 You shall not do as they do in the land of Egypt, where you lived, and you shall not do as they do in the land of Canaan, to which I am bringing you."

So, yes, he is painting them with the same brush. Either Egypt is guilty of offending all of the following proscriptions, or none of them are.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

There is no way you have an advanced degree...
"and after the doings of the land of Canaan"
not
"the nation of Canaan"

Are you this stupid at everything in which you are an expert?

 

[Indeependent]

First you Linked to the Amalek reference that was irreverent until I corrected you.
And now to show what an ignoramus you are in regards to the bestiality context...
Leviticus 18 / Hebrew - English Bible / Mechon-Mamre
Read it, especially verse 23, and eat sh!t, you phony.
These verses describe why God wants the nations of Canaan gone or dead...they were pure evil.

After re-reading, that's an awfully big stretch. So, your saying that the Amalekites literally went down the entire laundry list of every single thing that God doesn't like, and said, as a race of people, yeah, let's do that?

You are, literally, the first person I have ever heard tie verse two of chapter 18 to every command that followed thereafter.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

No stretch al all...God was acting as prosecuting attorney and explaining to the Children of Israel why they would have to exterminate the inhabitants of the land.
Do you actually think of bunch of Chassidim are going to exterminate millions of people without being commanded to do so by God?
God had to convince the Jews of the righteousness of eliminating evil.

Except that in that same verse, he also painted the Egyptians with the same brush, which means they, too, would have been guilty of each, and every one of those offenses, as a society. The problem is that we have records of the Egyptian society, and that is simply not the case. They did not engage in cultural bestiality, nor incest, nor societal homosexuality, nor any of the other "abominations" that are listed in the subsequent verses, and chapters. As such, why are we to assume that the Amalekites were gyiltybof all of these things, as a society, when the Egyptians we're not, except as a means to justify genocide.

Further, even if the society were guilty of all of them, that still does not justify genocide. Sorry. There is no crime, no matter how widespread, that justifies killing children, and infants.

Anyone who can justify killing children, and infants, for. Any. Reason has lost any moral high ground when ever discussing such moral, and ethical issues such as euthanasia, or abortion.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Neither Egypt not the Canaanites are painted as primitive savages by the Torah.
In fact, they all indulged in whatever technological advances they could conjure up.

God has an infinite outlook on existence.
You have your opinion based upon your genetics and environment; the same for me.
Yet you think you have the right call someone an idiot for siding with God's infinite view of existence.

I didn't say idiot. I said immoral. Genocide is immoral, I do t care if it is a man, demigod, or god that orders it.
If a man orders it, I will tell him to fuck off. If it is a supernatural being, then it is a supernatural being to whom I will refuse to offer my allegiance, and will have no moral respect for anyone who does.

You are clearly jot an idiot. You are clearly intelligent, and we'll educated. You also support evil.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

You have to learn how to read Scripture just like an attorney reads a contract.
Every word, every letter, every nuance is important.

 

[Czernobog]

After re-reading, that's an awfully big stretch. So, your saying that the Amalekites literally went down the entire laundry list of every single thing that God doesn't like, and said, as a race of people, yeah, let's do that?

You are, literally, the first person I have ever heard tie verse two of chapter 18 to every command that followed thereafter.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

No stretch al all...God was acting as prosecuting attorney and explaining to the Children of Israel why they would have to exterminate the inhabitants of the land.
Do you actually think of bunch of Chassidim are going to exterminate millions of people without being commanded to do so by God?
God had to convince the Jews of the righteousness of eliminating evil.

Except that in that same verse, he also painted the Egyptians with the same brush, which means they, too, would have been guilty of each, and every one of those offenses, as a society. The problem is that we have records of the Egyptian society, and that is simply not the case. They did not engage in cultural bestiality, nor incest, nor societal homosexuality, nor any of the other "abominations" that are listed in the subsequent verses, and chapters. As such, why are we to assume that the Amalekites were gyiltybof all of these things, as a society, when the Egyptians we're not, except as a means to justify genocide.

Further, even if the society were guilty of all of them, that still does not justify genocide. Sorry. There is no crime, no matter how widespread, that justifies killing children, and infants.

Anyone who can justify killing children, and infants, for. Any. Reason has lost any moral high ground when ever discussing such moral, and ethical issues such as euthanasia, or abortion.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Neither Egypt not the Canaanites are painted as primitive savages by the Torah.
In fact, they all indulged in whatever technological advances they could conjure up.

God has an infinite outlook on existence.
You have your opinion based upon your genetics and environment; the same for me.
Yet you think you have the right call someone an idiot for siding with God's infinite view of existence.

I'm sorry. You might wanna go read verse 3 again. The Egyptians, the Canaanites, and the Amalekites are all lumped together as a group. He doesn't even name the Amalekites, specifically. He just calls them those "…in the land of Canaan".

"3 You shall not do as they do in the land of Egypt, where you lived, and you shall not do as they do in the land of Canaan, to which I am bringing you."

So, yes, he is painting them with the same brush. Either Egypt is guilty of offending all of the following proscriptions, or none of them are.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

There is no way you have an advanced degree...
"and after the doings of the land of Canaan"
not
"the nation of Canaan"

Are you this stupid at everything in which you are an expert?

I didn't say nation of Canaan, did I?

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

 

[Czernobog]

After re-reading, that's an awfully big stretch. So, your saying that the Amalekites literally went down the entire laundry list of every single thing that God doesn't like, and said, as a race of people, yeah, let's do that?

You are, literally, the first person I have ever heard tie verse two of chapter 18 to every command that followed thereafter.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

No stretch al all...God was acting as prosecuting attorney and explaining to the Children of Israel why they would have to exterminate the inhabitants of the land.
Do you actually think of bunch of Chassidim are going to exterminate millions of people without being commanded to do so by God?
God had to convince the Jews of the righteousness of eliminating evil.

Except that in that same verse, he also painted the Egyptians with the same brush, which means they, too, would have been guilty of each, and every one of those offenses, as a society. The problem is that we have records of the Egyptian society, and that is simply not the case. They did not engage in cultural bestiality, nor incest, nor societal homosexuality, nor any of the other "abominations" that are listed in the subsequent verses, and chapters. As such, why are we to assume that the Amalekites were gyiltybof all of these things, as a society, when the Egyptians we're not, except as a means to justify genocide.

Further, even if the society were guilty of all of them, that still does not justify genocide. Sorry. There is no crime, no matter how widespread, that justifies killing children, and infants.

Anyone who can justify killing children, and infants, for. Any. Reason has lost any moral high ground when ever discussing such moral, and ethical issues such as euthanasia, or abortion.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Neither Egypt not the Canaanites are painted as primitive savages by the Torah.
In fact, they all indulged in whatever technological advances they could conjure up.

God has an infinite outlook on existence.
You have your opinion based upon your genetics and environment; the same for me.
Yet you think you have the right call someone an idiot for siding with God's infinite view of existence.

I didn't say idiot. I said immoral. Genocide is immoral, I do t care if it is a man, demigod, or god that orders it.
If a man orders it, I will tell him to fuck off. If it is a supernatural being, then it is a supernatural being to whom I will refuse to offer my allegiance, and will have no moral respect for anyone who does.

You are clearly jot an idiot. You are clearly intelligent, and we'll educated. You also support evil.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

You have to learn how to read Scripture just like an attorney reads a contract.
Every word, every letter, every nuance is important.

No. There is no way to read that killing children, and infants is not evil. You support evil.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

 

[Indeependent]

No stretch al all...God was acting as prosecuting attorney and explaining to the Children of Israel why they would have to exterminate the inhabitants of the land.
Do you actually think of bunch of Chassidim are going to exterminate millions of people without being commanded to do so by God?
God had to convince the Jews of the righteousness of eliminating evil.

Except that in that same verse, he also painted the Egyptians with the same brush, which means they, too, would have been guilty of each, and every one of those offenses, as a society. The problem is that we have records of the Egyptian society, and that is simply not the case. They did not engage in cultural bestiality, nor incest, nor societal homosexuality, nor any of the other "abominations" that are listed in the subsequent verses, and chapters. As such, why are we to assume that the Amalekites were gyiltybof all of these things, as a society, when the Egyptians we're not, except as a means to justify genocide.

Further, even if the society were guilty of all of them, that still does not justify genocide. Sorry. There is no crime, no matter how widespread, that justifies killing children, and infants.

Anyone who can justify killing children, and infants, for. Any. Reason has lost any moral high ground when ever discussing such moral, and ethical issues such as euthanasia, or abortion.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Neither Egypt not the Canaanites are painted as primitive savages by the Torah.
In fact, they all indulged in whatever technological advances they could conjure up.

God has an infinite outlook on existence.
You have your opinion based upon your genetics and environment; the same for me.
Yet you think you have the right call someone an idiot for siding with God's infinite view of existence.

I'm sorry. You might wanna go read verse 3 again. The Egyptians, the Canaanites, and the Amalekites are all lumped together as a group. He doesn't even name the Amalekites, specifically. He just calls them those "…in the land of Canaan".

"3 You shall not do as they do in the land of Egypt, where you lived, and you shall not do as they do in the land of Canaan, to which I am bringing you."

So, yes, he is painting them with the same brush. Either Egypt is guilty of offending all of the following proscriptions, or none of them are.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

There is no way you have an advanced degree...
"and after the doings of the land of Canaan"
not
"the nation of Canaan"

Are you this stupid at everything in which you are an expert?

I didn't say nation of Canaan, did I?

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

You inferred such by treating Egypt and Canaan and two distinct nations.
God is specifically equating all the nations who occupied the Land of Canaan with the Egyptians.

 

[Indeependent]

No stretch al all...God was acting as prosecuting attorney and explaining to the Children of Israel why they would have to exterminate the inhabitants of the land.
Do you actually think of bunch of Chassidim are going to exterminate millions of people without being commanded to do so by God?
God had to convince the Jews of the righteousness of eliminating evil.

Except that in that same verse, he also painted the Egyptians with the same brush, which means they, too, would have been guilty of each, and every one of those offenses, as a society. The problem is that we have records of the Egyptian society, and that is simply not the case. They did not engage in cultural bestiality, nor incest, nor societal homosexuality, nor any of the other "abominations" that are listed in the subsequent verses, and chapters. As such, why are we to assume that the Amalekites were gyiltybof all of these things, as a society, when the Egyptians we're not, except as a means to justify genocide.

Further, even if the society were guilty of all of them, that still does not justify genocide. Sorry. There is no crime, no matter how widespread, that justifies killing children, and infants.

Anyone who can justify killing children, and infants, for. Any. Reason has lost any moral high ground when ever discussing such moral, and ethical issues such as euthanasia, or abortion.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Neither Egypt not the Canaanites are painted as primitive savages by the Torah.
In fact, they all indulged in whatever technological advances they could conjure up.

God has an infinite outlook on existence.
You have your opinion based upon your genetics and environment; the same for me.
Yet you think you have the right call someone an idiot for siding with God's infinite view of existence.

I didn't say idiot. I said immoral. Genocide is immoral, I do t care if it is a man, demigod, or god that orders it.
If a man orders it, I will tell him to fuck off. If it is a supernatural being, then it is a supernatural being to whom I will refuse to offer my allegiance, and will have no moral respect for anyone who does.

You are clearly jot an idiot. You are clearly intelligent, and we'll educated. You also support evil.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

You have to learn how to read Scripture just like an attorney reads a contract.
Every word, every letter, every nuance is important.

No. There is no way to read that killing children, and infants is not evil. You support evil.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Really?
Never heard of 2 year old Muslims blowing themselves up in a crowd?

 

[Czernobog]

Except that in that same verse, he also painted the Egyptians with the same brush, which means they, too, would have been guilty of each, and every one of those offenses, as a society. The problem is that we have records of the Egyptian society, and that is simply not the case. They did not engage in cultural bestiality, nor incest, nor societal homosexuality, nor any of the other "abominations" that are listed in the subsequent verses, and chapters. As such, why are we to assume that the Amalekites were gyiltybof all of these things, as a society, when the Egyptians we're not, except as a means to justify genocide.

Further, even if the society were guilty of all of them, that still does not justify genocide. Sorry. There is no crime, no matter how widespread, that justifies killing children, and infants.

Anyone who can justify killing children, and infants, for. Any. Reason has lost any moral high ground when ever discussing such moral, and ethical issues such as euthanasia, or abortion.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Neither Egypt not the Canaanites are painted as primitive savages by the Torah.
In fact, they all indulged in whatever technological advances they could conjure up.

God has an infinite outlook on existence.
You have your opinion based upon your genetics and environment; the same for me.
Yet you think you have the right call someone an idiot for siding with God's infinite view of existence.

I'm sorry. You might wanna go read verse 3 again. The Egyptians, the Canaanites, and the Amalekites are all lumped together as a group. He doesn't even name the Amalekites, specifically. He just calls them those "…in the land of Canaan".

"3 You shall not do as they do in the land of Egypt, where you lived, and you shall not do as they do in the land of Canaan, to which I am bringing you."

So, yes, he is painting them with the same brush. Either Egypt is guilty of offending all of the following proscriptions, or none of them are.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

There is no way you have an advanced degree...
"and after the doings of the land of Canaan"
not
"the nation of Canaan"

Are you this stupid at everything in which you are an expert?

I didn't say nation of Canaan, did I?

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

You inferred such by treating Egypt and Canaan and two distinct nations.
God is specifically equating all the nations who occupied the Land of Canaan with the Egyptians.

I presume that by those"…living in the land of Canaan…" he meant the Amalekites, even though he didn't name them.

And still irrelevant. Even if every single adult in the land, down to the last man, and woman was wantonly violating every one of those "nonos" on that list - which I find exceedingly unlikely - that still does not justify killing children, and infants. Killing children, and infants is genocide. It is evil. You support evil.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

 

[Indeependent]

Neither Egypt not the Canaanites are painted as primitive savages by the Torah.
In fact, they all indulged in whatever technological advances they could conjure up.

God has an infinite outlook on existence.
You have your opinion based upon your genetics and environment; the same for me.
Yet you think you have the right call someone an idiot for siding with God's infinite view of existence.

I'm sorry. You might wanna go read verse 3 again. The Egyptians, the Canaanites, and the Amalekites are all lumped together as a group. He doesn't even name the Amalekites, specifically. He just calls them those "…in the land of Canaan".

"3 You shall not do as they do in the land of Egypt, where you lived, and you shall not do as they do in the land of Canaan, to which I am bringing you."

So, yes, he is painting them with the same brush. Either Egypt is guilty of offending all of the following proscriptions, or none of them are.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

There is no way you have an advanced degree...
"and after the doings of the land of Canaan"
not
"the nation of Canaan"

Are you this stupid at everything in which you are an expert?

I didn't say nation of Canaan, did I?

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

You inferred such by treating Egypt and Canaan and two distinct nations.
God is specifically equating all the nations who occupied the Land of Canaan with the Egyptians.

I presume that by those"…living in the land of Canaan…" he meant the Amalekites, even though he didn't name them.

And still irrelevant. Even if every single adult in the land, down to the last man, and woman was wantonly violating every one of those "nonos" on that list - which I find exceedingly unlikely - that still does not justify killing children, and infants. Killing children, and infants is genocide. It is evil. You support evil.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Including passing their children through the fire of molech much like the Arabs do today.
Actually, the story of the conquest of the Land of Canaan is much deeper than this series of verses.
You see, the inhabitants of the Land of Canaan knew for 40 years that the conquest was going to happen eventually and they knew the Jews had beaten off Amalek and yet they refused to prepare to leave the land.
They basically doomed their own children to death by not leaving.
And keep in mind that Joshua was mandated to give a 3 day warning before the conquest of each nation.

There's much more, but not for tonight.

 

[Czernobog]

Except that in that same verse, he also painted the Egyptians with the same brush, which means they, too, would have been guilty of each, and every one of those offenses, as a society. The problem is that we have records of the Egyptian society, and that is simply not the case. They did not engage in cultural bestiality, nor incest, nor societal homosexuality, nor any of the other "abominations" that are listed in the subsequent verses, and chapters. As such, why are we to assume that the Amalekites were gyiltybof all of these things, as a society, when the Egyptians we're not, except as a means to justify genocide.

Further, even if the society were guilty of all of them, that still does not justify genocide. Sorry. There is no crime, no matter how widespread, that justifies killing children, and infants.

Anyone who can justify killing children, and infants, for. Any. Reason has lost any moral high ground when ever discussing such moral, and ethical issues such as euthanasia, or abortion.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Neither Egypt not the Canaanites are painted as primitive savages by the Torah.
In fact, they all indulged in whatever technological advances they could conjure up.

God has an infinite outlook on existence.
You have your opinion based upon your genetics and environment; the same for me.
Yet you think you have the right call someone an idiot for siding with God's infinite view of existence.

I didn't say idiot. I said immoral. Genocide is immoral, I do t care if it is a man, demigod, or god that orders it.
If a man orders it, I will tell him to fuck off. If it is a supernatural being, then it is a supernatural being to whom I will refuse to offer my allegiance, and will have no moral respect for anyone who does.

You are clearly jot an idiot. You are clearly intelligent, and we'll educated. You also support evil.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

You have to learn how to read Scripture just like an attorney reads a contract.
Every word, every letter, every nuance is important.

No. There is no way to read that killing children, and infants is not evil. You support evil.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Really?
Never heard of 2 year old Muslims blowing themselves up in a crowd?

First, that's a toddler, not an infant. Second, no I haven't, and even if you can manage to find such an aberration, it proves nothing. Are you seriously suggesting that 2-year-old had the foggiest notion what was going on? Because if you are, I'm going to insist you're full of shit.

Mommy and daddy threw the vest on him pushed him out in the street, waited for him to innocently wander into a crowd, and pushed a button. The kid was not evil. Mommy, and daddy were monsters, but the kid was not evil.

You, however, support ordering the murder of children, and infants. You support evil.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

 

[Indeependent]

Neither Egypt not the Canaanites are painted as primitive savages by the Torah.
In fact, they all indulged in whatever technological advances they could conjure up.

God has an infinite outlook on existence.
You have your opinion based upon your genetics and environment; the same for me.
Yet you think you have the right call someone an idiot for siding with God's infinite view of existence.

I didn't say idiot. I said immoral. Genocide is immoral, I do t care if it is a man, demigod, or god that orders it.
If a man orders it, I will tell him to fuck off. If it is a supernatural being, then it is a supernatural being to whom I will refuse to offer my allegiance, and will have no moral respect for anyone who does.

You are clearly jot an idiot. You are clearly intelligent, and we'll educated. You also support evil.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

You have to learn how to read Scripture just like an attorney reads a contract.
Every word, every letter, every nuance is important.

No. There is no way to read that killing children, and infants is not evil. You support evil.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Really?
Never heard of 2 year old Muslims blowing themselves up in a crowd?

First, that's a toddler, not an infant. Second, no I haven't, and even if you can manage to find such an aberration, it proves nothing. Are you seriously suggesting that 2-year-old had the foggiest notion what was going on? Because if you are, I'm going to insist you're full of shit.

Mommy and daddy threw the vest on him pushed him out in the street, waited for him to innocently wander into a crowd, and pushed a button. The kid was not evil. Mommy, and daddy were monsters, but the kid was not evil.

You, however, support ordering the murder of children, and infants. You support evil.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

You're a Psychiatrist and insist that 2 year olds are not impressionable?
2 year olds can be manipulated very easily.

 

[Czernobog]

I'm sorry. You might wanna go read verse 3 again. The Egyptians, the Canaanites, and the Amalekites are all lumped together as a group. He doesn't even name the Amalekites, specifically. He just calls them those "…in the land of Canaan".

"3 You shall not do as they do in the land of Egypt, where you lived, and you shall not do as they do in the land of Canaan, to which I am bringing you."

So, yes, he is painting them with the same brush. Either Egypt is guilty of offending all of the following proscriptions, or none of them are.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

There is no way you have an advanced degree...
"and after the doings of the land of Canaan"
not
"the nation of Canaan"

Are you this stupid at everything in which you are an expert?

I didn't say nation of Canaan, did I?

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

You inferred such by treating Egypt and Canaan and two distinct nations.
God is specifically equating all the nations who occupied the Land of Canaan with the Egyptians.

I presume that by those"…living in the land of Canaan…" he meant the Amalekites, even though he didn't name them.

And still irrelevant. Even if every single adult in the land, down to the last man, and woman was wantonly violating every one of those "nonos" on that list - which I find exceedingly unlikely - that still does not justify killing children, and infants. Killing children, and infants is genocide. It is evil. You support evil.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Including passing their children through the fire of molech much like the Arabs do today.
Actually, the story of the conquest of the Land of Canaan is much deeper than this series of verses.
You see, the inhabitants of the Land of Canaan knew for 40 years that the conquest was going to happen eventually and they knew the Jews had beaten off Amalek and yet they refused to prepare to leave the land.
They basically doomed their own children to death by not leaving.
And keep in mind that Joshua was mandated to give a 3 day warning before the conquest of each nation.

There's much more, but not for tonight.

Children. And. Infants. You don't seem to get that no matter how you want to parse it; no matter how you want to justify it you are not going to get around children. And,. Infants. And you continue to defend, and justify it. That makes you as sociopathic, and evil as your God that commanded it.

 

[Czernobog]

I didn't say idiot. I said immoral. Genocide is immoral, I do t care if it is a man, demigod, or god that orders it.
If a man orders it, I will tell him to fuck off. If it is a supernatural being, then it is a supernatural being to whom I will refuse to offer my allegiance, and will have no moral respect for anyone who does.

You are clearly jot an idiot. You are clearly intelligent, and we'll educated. You also support evil.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

You have to learn how to read Scripture just like an attorney reads a contract.
Every word, every letter, every nuance is important.

No. There is no way to read that killing children, and infants is not evil. You support evil.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Really?
Never heard of 2 year old Muslims blowing themselves up in a crowd?

First, that's a toddler, not an infant. Second, no I haven't, and even if you can manage to find such an aberration, it proves nothing. Are you seriously suggesting that 2-year-old had the foggiest notion what was going on? Because if you are, I'm going to insist you're full of shit.

Mommy and daddy threw the vest on him pushed him out in the street, waited for him to innocently wander into a crowd, and pushed a button. The kid was not evil. Mommy, and daddy were monsters, but the kid was not evil.

You, however, support ordering the murder of children, and infants. You support evil.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

You're a Psychiatrist and insist that 2 year olds are not impressionable?
2 year olds can be manipulated very easily.

I'm a psychiatrist, and insist that 2-year-olds are not capable of being responsible for their actions. Period. And you will not find a psychiatrist to say otherwise.

But, you are. And you continues to defend, and attempt to find ways, and reasons to justify killing children, and infants. That makes you as sociopathic, and evil as the God who ordered the annihilation of an entire race, including children, and infants, whom you worship.

 

[Indeependent]

There is no way you have an advanced degree...
"and after the doings of the land of Canaan"
not
"the nation of Canaan"

Are you this stupid at everything in which you are an expert?

I didn't say nation of Canaan, did I?

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

You inferred such by treating Egypt and Canaan and two distinct nations.
God is specifically equating all the nations who occupied the Land of Canaan with the Egyptians.

I presume that by those"…living in the land of Canaan…" he meant the Amalekites, even though he didn't name them.

And still irrelevant. Even if every single adult in the land, down to the last man, and woman was wantonly violating every one of those "nonos" on that list - which I find exceedingly unlikely - that still does not justify killing children, and infants. Killing children, and infants is genocide. It is evil. You support evil.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Including passing their children through the fire of molech much like the Arabs do today.
Actually, the story of the conquest of the Land of Canaan is much deeper than this series of verses.
You see, the inhabitants of the Land of Canaan knew for 40 years that the conquest was going to happen eventually and they knew the Jews had beaten off Amalek and yet they refused to prepare to leave the land.
They basically doomed their own children to death by not leaving.
And keep in mind that Joshua was mandated to give a 3 day warning before the conquest of each nation.

There's much more, but not for tonight.

Children. And. Infants. You don't seem to get that no matter how you want to parse it; no matter how you want to justify it you are not going to get around children. And,. Infants. And you continue to defend, and justify it. That makes you as sociopathic, and evil as your God that commanded it.

God defines our moral boundries.
The Canaanites had 40 years to prepare and let their children die.
What would you have done if you knew the consequences?

 

[Indeependent]

You have to learn how to read Scripture just like an attorney reads a contract.
Every word, every letter, every nuance is important.

No. There is no way to read that killing children, and infants is not evil. You support evil.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Really?
Never heard of 2 year old Muslims blowing themselves up in a crowd?

First, that's a toddler, not an infant. Second, no I haven't, and even if you can manage to find such an aberration, it proves nothing. Are you seriously suggesting that 2-year-old had the foggiest notion what was going on? Because if you are, I'm going to insist you're full of shit.

Mommy and daddy threw the vest on him pushed him out in the street, waited for him to innocently wander into a crowd, and pushed a button. The kid was not evil. Mommy, and daddy were monsters, but the kid was not evil.

You, however, support ordering the murder of children, and infants. You support evil.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

You're a Psychiatrist and insist that 2 year olds are not impressionable?
2 year olds can be manipulated very easily.

I'm a psychiatrist, and insist that 2-year-olds are not capable of being responsible for their actions. Period. And you will not find a psychiatrist to say otherwise.

But, you are. And you continues to defend, and attempt to find ways, and reasons to justify killing children, and infants. That makes you as sociopathic, and evil as the God who ordered the annihilation of an entire race, including children, and infants, whom you worship.

How many inveterate murderers have murdered again thanks to the testimony of health professionals?
I think God has the high ground on this issue.