[Sesquipedalian]

Kazan, you're not really listening.  As mikhael and I already discussed, it isn't a genocide unless one is killing people based on their ethnicity.  If you are killing them because they burn babies alive, it isn't genocide.  That a certain people group's members are also members of the set of people engaging in such practices and therefore targeted for execution is circumstantial.  This addresses most of the content of your post.

"'Modern' Bible"?  The earliest manuscripts for the New Testament we have date from the second century AD, and the earliest we have for the Old Testament date from the second century BC to the first AD.  Strange use of the term modern...

I am well aware of bias.  I am also aware that the reader has bias along with the writer.  What I am getting at is that mikhael seemed to be letting his own bias get too much in the way when dealing with the text.  It was surely an inadvertent error (we all do it), and it is a service to one another when we call each other on it.

Exactly how am I a pot calling the kettle black?  If there is something in the text I am overlooking, please show it to me.

For you it is irrelevant whether the Canaanites were killed or not, but in my discussion with mik he seemed to think that they really were.  But if you are unconcerned with the actual history, Kazan, then I have to ask you whether you want to have your cake or eat it.  Is our concern is with the text and the story it tells, or are we going to concern ourselves with what "really" happened?

If the concern is with what the text says, then we need to understand the text the way it presents itself.  And it presents itself as justifying the execution of baby killers.

If the concern is with what "really happened," then we are right back in the world of history that you claim is irrelevant.  To say that such-and-such in the text is really a post facto rationalisation is to start dealing with the history again.

Of course capital punishment is for individuals.  And that is what this is.  The whole lot of them did take part in this sacrifice.  Such rituals were communal in the ancient world.  In 21st century Western civilisation we make religion a private thing.  In the ancient world its was not.  Everyone who was proscribed would indeed have participated.  Thus it is that great number of individuals can all be found guilty.  Moreover, when a group of people all participate in a crime, they are very often tried corporately even in our justice system.  

Now, if you want to deal with what the text says, rather than history, you need to deal with a text in which God is considered a reality (so no appeals to God's not being real).  In this text, God doesn't need to conduct trials because he knows the truth already.  So he is in a position to pass sentence on whoever he sees fit.  If a large number of people are all guilty, and all given the same sentence, it only makes sense to communicate that sentence all at once.  In other words, what we have here in the story the text tells is God saying "This group of baby killers is to be executed for their evil deeds."  That is what the text is saying.  It isn't a justification for genocide, but a condemnation of infanticide.

[karajorma]

Originally posted by Sesquipedalian
But they aren't being killed because they are Canaanites.  They are being killed because their sins apparently deserve it.  If some of them were not found deserving of death, they wouldn't have been.  (Cf. the Sodom and Gomorrah incident, where God is willing to spare the city if even an arbitrarily small number of people can be found in it, and when not even a handful can be found, he removes all that should be spared before striking.)  So no one is trying to kill off people groups, they are trying to kill off sinners.  That people groups are decimated along the way is a side effect.

So what you're saying is that there were no innocent children or babies in either city? Either you're claiming that the children were also sodemites or that they had burnt them all already.

[Setekh]

Kara, I don't think any of the people in those cities was innocent. Before you jump on me, though, make sure you define innocence. If God does exist and is greater than us, he will surely have a greater and higher definition of innocence than we do or ever have.

Originally posted by pyro-manic
Setekh: I'm very surprised to hear that from someone like you. By that logic, no person on the planet should be allowed to live - are you 100% "innocent"? I very much doubt it. I assume genocide is bad because I believe nobody has the right to take the life of another person (unless they themselves are in mortal danger from said person), not because there is the risk of an innocent person being killed.

Mmmm, you raise an interesting point. And that's what I've been trying to say all along. No, absolutely not, I don't count myself as deserving of life. No Christian does; that is a part of the teaching of grace, which has no place in any other religion.

And yes, Sesq has said in other words what I meant. I did think it would be worth poking you in the eye with that thought, though. There is a heavy undercurrent of anthropomorphism going here, which I think ought to be inspected more closely (for instance, the thought about absolute power and its corrupting power among humans). Keep thinking, folks.

[Kazan]

Originally posted by Sesquipedalian
Kazan, you're not really listening.  

There is a difference between "not listening" and "not accepting your argument" LEARN IT

As mikhael and I already discussed, it isn't a genocide unless one is killing people based on their ethnicity.

WRONG

Dictionary

genocide n.
systematic killing of a racial or cultural group

Doesn't say anything about _why_ just the act of killing a racial/cultural group is genocide.  This is the definition you're going to find everyone in academia using to my knowledge

If you are killing them because they burn babies alive, it isn't genocide.

Wrong, it's still genocide.  Nor do I believe your claim that they did so.   I find that just setting up post facto excuses

That a certain people group's members are also members of the set of people engaging in such practices and therefore targeted for execution is circumstantial.

There is a thing called a TRIAL, but I forget the human race was too primative at the time (says a lot for the people who wrote your book).  The code of Harrumbi wa just cerated at that time (And heavily influence the ten commandsment).  

This addresses most of the content of your post.

Addresses... maybe
 

"'Modern' Bible"?  The earliest manuscripts for the New Testament we have date from the second century AD, and the earliest we have for the Old Testament date from the second century BC to the first AD.  Strange use of the term modern...

The earliests payruses for the NT are in the THIRD century - and there are large gaps in the bible and glaring misognist meddling.

It has sense been translated numerous times, always with intentional alterations.   When I said "modern" i was refering to modern translations which are really translations of translations of translations of translations - all translated by people with agendas

I am well aware of bias.  I am also aware that the reader has bias along with the writer.

 I have read the bible cover to cover - several translations.  IT's all a load of lengendized historical fiction written by a bunch of people who didn't understand the world around them so they came up with a god to explain it - humans have been doing that for thousands of yeras.  The problem is now we can explain what was once unexplainable, and that which isn't yet explained some of us have reached the emntal maturity to accept that it isn't explain yet but we will find the explaination.

I What I am getting at is that mikhael seemed to be letting his own bias get too much in the way when dealing with the text.  It was surely an inadvertent error (we all do it), and it is a service to one another when we call each other on it.

However, be careful before accusing people of bias unless you can explain why they would have one.

You have a pro-bais favor because you being in your invisible friend in the sky since it';s emotionally appealing to you

Exactly how am I a pot calling the kettle black?  If there is something in the text I am overlooking, please show it to me.

Because I can say with 100% certainty and without being stereotyping that everyone who believes in teh bible picks and chooses which verses to believe, for one it contradicts itself in many places - for two that's human nature that is only overcome through a sense of intellectual integrity (which is requisit lacking in relation to the bible to believe it - compartmentalization allows someone who otherwise has it to loose it in relation to the bible)

For you it is irrelevant whether the Canaanites were killed or not, but in my discussion with mik he seemed to think that they really were.

I don't believe your justificatios until i find indpendant historical documents predating the bible and predating the destruction of Canaan documenting their atrocities - then I'll halfway believe you - however killing an entire group of people for their religious beliefs is not justified.

But if you are unconcerned with the actual history, Kazan, then I have to ask you whether you want to have your cake or eat it.

I am concerned with the actual history - however for the sake of this argument the actual history is irrevelant - you are supporting and trying to justify genocide with a post facto rationalization and I'm not going to let you get away with it - it smells to high hell of BULLL****

Is our concern is with the text and the story it tells, or are we going to concern ourselves with what "really" happened?

Our concern in this argumenmt is you supporting genocide because your imaginary friend does

If the concern is with what the text says, then we need to understand the text the way it presents itself.  And it presents itself as justifying the execution of baby killers.

It does indeed present itself as justified in killing an entire ethnic group - however it doesn't mean it is justified and it doesn't mean it isn't genocide.  Of course the book written by the victors are going to try and justify they're actions

If the concern is with what "really happened," then we are right back in the world of history that you claim is irrelevant.  To say that such-and-such in the text is really a post facto rationalisation is to start dealing with the history again.

Until you show me independant evidence predating the bible that they practiced human sacrifice - of their children especially - then I'm going to disbelieve your documents claims because it has a vested interested in demonizing the victims of said genocide.  

If they really were "baby killers" as you want to put it in such an emotinoally provacative manner to try and emotionally blackmail us - then it changes little.  It changes from being a post facto rationalization to being an excuse.

Of course capital punishment is for individuals.  And that is what this is.

Killing an entire ethnic group that supposedly practices something YOUR religion finds reprehensible (and so do I) but their religion demanded - just yet another of the thousands of religious wars throughout the history of this planet.  This one ended in genocide.

The whole lot of them did take part in this sacrifice.

You have no evidence to support this claim

Such rituals were communal in the ancient world.

In some cultures/religions.  You conviently ignored my point about your imaginary friend in the sky demanding Job kill his son (only to stay his hand at the last minute - however that is just saying "I want you to be willing to kill your child for me if you have to!")  INFACT the bible in multiple places advocates killing of children.  In one place it not only ADVOCATES it - it has the "angel of death" doing it.  (Don't try to justify it as being pharo's decry - your imaginary sky friend still did it)

In 21st century Western civilisation we make religion a private thing.

Wem make it an obsolete thing.

However in 21st century Western civilization YOU do not make religion a private thing.  There is a very large christian fundamentalist movement trying to rip up the constitution and establish a theocracy - this is no conspiracy theory - this is directly out of the mouths of the leaders of the movement and is directly correlated by the actinos of the members of the organizations.

If I have to defend my freedom to think freely, speak freely, etc with the gun I will do so with utmost contempt for being forced into that position - but I will do so devistatingly.

Your side has already started the war, it just isn't a shooting war yet but your side is preparing.  My side is late to prepare however the fundamnetalists should beware that we're in posession of the best scientists, and tactitions.  I will laugh at, and the fundamentalists will rue the day, that they make it a shooting war.

In the ancient world its was not.  Everyone who was proscribed would indeed have participated.  Thus it is that great number of individuals can all be found guilty.  Moreover, when a group of people all participate in a crime, they are very often tried corporately even in our justice system.  

'

Show me evidence

Now, if you want to deal with what the text says, rather than history, you need to deal with a text in which God is considered a reality (so no appeals to God's not being real).

No really your THINK - you act like I don't.  What ever the reasons for you supporting genocide IT'S STILL GENOCIDE.  I don't give a rats if your god believesa it - that is unacceptable behavior.  IT is made even worse by the fact that you're simply believing in something emotionally appealing that has no semblance of being real, no REAL evidence (you people like calling things which are absolutely not evidence 'evidence for god'), no logic [without logical fallacy]

In this text, God doesn't need to conduct trials because he knows the truth already.

However YOU are not god, the people who killed the Canaanites are NOT GOD - lots of people claim to know gods word.  This is boviously impossible when you a) rationally approach whether god exists and b) lots of people claiming they have gods word contradict e/o on a regular basis

So he is in a position to pass sentence on whoever he sees fit.  If a large number of people are all guilty, and all given the same sentence, it only makes sense to communicate that sentence all at once.  

post facto rationalization by the victors

n other words, what we have here in the story the text tells is God saying "This group of baby killers is to be executed for their evil deeds."  That is what the text is saying.  It isn't a justification for genocide, but a condemnation of infanticide.

It's still genocide none the less. And furthermore to the eyes of those of us who have matured enough to be beyond gods (And don't take that as an intetional insult - psychologically, and sociologically speaking those who reach post-conventional morality and value real knowledge are psychologically and sociologically more mature than those who believe in emotionally appealing accounts of reality and in conventional morality, even worse quite often theists are all for pre-conventional morality)


I see the logical path for it to be justified in your eyes - however I call you person  willing to commit crimes against humanity.  You are rephrensible if not only for your support of genocide but yout casting aside real knowledge and intellecutal integrity in favor of the irrational and emotionally appealing take on reality.  

When someone bases their view of reality in irrationality I shouldn't expect much of them.  However I do expect them to metacognate and realize they're worldview is nothing but a load of bull and change it.

[Kazan]

Originally posted by karajorma


So what you're saying is that there were no innocent children or babies in either city? Either you're claiming that the children were also sodemites or that they had burnt them all already.

I overlooked this - I would like Sesq to rationalize killing of the children when he was just condemning that practice

SESQ=HYPOCRIT!

[Liberator]

Kazan,  you accuse the Right of wanting to tear up the Constitution and establish a Theocracy.  The way I see you and yours want to burn the churches/synagogues/mosques/temples and establish an Atheist Communist/Socialist enviroment complete with Thought Police.

Also, God doesn't have to make a trial and produce evidence.  He is Omnicient(all knowing), Omnipresent(everywhere, all at once) and Omnipotent(all-powerful).  This translates to the following:

1.  His knowledge, morality, and Ethics are Perfect
2.  He sees everything you have done, are doing right now, and will do in the future.

God did not have to try the people of Soddom and Gamorrah.  He was intimately aware of they're guilt.

Setekh is right about something else, you are anthropomorphizing God.  God is not human or mortal and you shouldn't ascribe human motivations to his actions.

[Ghostavo]

Originally posted by Liberator
Setekh is right about something else, you are anthropomorphizing God. God is not human or mortal and you shouldn't ascribe human motivations to his actions.

Then what are you assuming "God made man in his image" (or something like that) means? Something must be... er... similar.

Kara made a nice "paradox" about the whole thing. If you kill the "criminals" aren't you doing what they did in the first place?

[Liberator]

He may look like us, but His motivations and mentality are not.  He could swat us as easily as we swat a single ant on the kitchen counter.

What you forget is He made the laws originally, any idea that goes against human nature are Divinely inspired.

[Ghostavo]

Let me make something clear then...
anthropomorph = anthropo (human or man) + morph (shape or form)

On the second part, do you know what is human nature? So for example, sodomites were divinely inspired... interesting...

[Kazan]

Originally posted by Liberator
Kazan,  you accuse the Right of wanting to tear up the Constitution and establish a Theocracy.  The way I see you and yours want to burn the churches/synagogues/mosques/temples and establish an Atheist Communist/Socialist enviroment complete with Thought Police.

I never advocated that and I never would, you insult me gravely.  I do promote people actually using their brains though.  There is a difference between society demanding people use their brains and government demanding you think a certain way

I want the church to die of it's own dead weight and intellectual vacuousity.  The government of the united states is already supposed to be a purely secular entity.  The founding fathers set it up that way with clear intent from their writings and the constitution itself.  

Government has no business in religion, and religion has no business in government.  It degrades both of them. Take your apocolyptic world-dominist thinking and shuve it.

Also, God doesn't have to make a trial and produce evidence.  He is Omnicient(all knowing), Omnipresent(everywhere, all at once) and Omnipotent(all-powerful).  This translates to the following:


1.  His knowledge, morality, and Ethics are Perfect
2.  He sees everything you have done, are doing right now, and will do in the future.

God did not have to try the people of Soddom and Gamorrah.  He was intimately aware of they're guilt.

No **** sherlock holmes.  I know more of you mythologies history and implications than you do.  Go back to worshipping Zeus, he's much less threatening to global security.

Setekh is right about something else, you are anthropomorphizing God.  God is not human or mortal and you shouldn't ascribe human motivations to his actions.

GOD DOESN'T EXIST - The people who wrote that book are HUMAN - So I'f im 'anthropomorthphizing' [wrong term - correct term: personification] that means you're implying the authors of your holy books were subhuman.


-------------------

In short: GROW UP past needing an emotional crutch - or at very least KEEP IT OUT OF OTHER PEOPLES LIVES AND THE GOVERNMENT


I challenge you YET AGAIN to present evidence of his existance. - and I said EVIDENCE not fallacies, non sequiturs, and what your emotions tell you

[ionia23]

Originally posted by Kazan


GOD DOESN'T EXIST - The people who wrote that book are HUMAN - So I'f im 'anthropomorthphizing' [wrong term - correct term: personification] that means you're implying the authors of your holy books were subhuman.

I challenge you YET AGAIN to present evidence of his existance. - and I said EVIDENCE not fallacies, non sequiturs, and what your emotions tell you

See, that's the wonderful thing about faith.  For those who believe, no explanation is necessary.  For those who don't, no explanation is possible.

[karajorma]

Originally posted by Setekh
Kara, I don't think any of the people in those cities was innocent. Before you jump on me, though, make sure you define innocence. If God does exist and is greater than us, he will surely have a greater and higher definition of innocence than we do or ever have.

Let's put it this way. How can a 6 month old baby have commited a sin? Let alone a sin worth of death.

Seq was claiming that everyone in Sodom and Gomorrah had committed sins evil enough that they deserved capital punishment. I'd like to know how a 6 month old can do that.

[ionia23]

Originally posted by karajorma


Let's put it this way. How can a 6 month old baby have commited a sin? Let alone a sin worth of death.

Seq was claiming that everyone in Sodom and Gomorrah had committed sins evil enough that they deserved capital punishment. I'd like to know how a 6 month old can do that.

That's assuming there was a six month old in either city. Remember, if one were without sin then the city would be spared.  

You've got to understand, God's approach to his people his very different between the Old and New Testaments is pretty stark.  Maybe it was a change in approaches.  I know a good parable about that, but I doubt this audience really wants to hear it.

[Flipside]

Meh, bring on the Lightning bolts then I've commited a few 'sins' in my time, and enjoyed quite a few of 'em

But then, there is a large gap between Gomorrah and 'Let he who is without sin.....'

Although, of course, we are also assuming that Seq wasn't one of those people who manages to never actually notice the existence of children? God may be all powerful, but people can be morons

[Liberator]

You don't understand,

ALL sin is punishable by death.  

That is why Christ sacrificed himself.  To provide a sacrifice worthy enough to pay the price for all our sin.  He was God's son and he didn't have to die, he could've called a million angels down and wiped out the Romans and corrupt Jewish leadership, but he didn't.  He begged and pleaded with his Father not to die that night in Gethsemane(sp?).  But in the end he knew that if he didn't go through with it, mankind would be damned to burn in the Lake of Fire for all time.

[karajorma]

So is that what happened to Moses and all the Jews who lived before Jesus then?

Sucks to be them then

[Kazan]

Liberator we understand better than you'll ever realize - understanding and accepting are two different things

I know the story of christ, don't insult my by telling me things I already know

[Liberator]

They're in a unique situation.  Because the Jews are God's Chosen People, they get a pass so long as they fufil certain requisites.  It used to be sacrificing a lamb but I don't know what they do today.

[ionia23]

Or if you buy into the Dante interpretation, a number of them were taken up by Jesus when he decended into hell after the crucifixion.

[Liberator]

Dante is work of fiction though.

Wasn't really talking to you though Kaz.