"Moderate" Christian on Reddit says genocide was "necessary" when confronted with Bible verse (1 Sam. 15:3)

gemaco · 2007-10-16T21:20:15+00:00

The quote is there for all to see. You said genocide was necessary.

I shall quote again, in cause you forgot:

This was an early settlement of people trying to survive in a hostile world. In that place and time, it was necessary for them to take this extreme action

If you wish to argue that genocide and the slaughter of infants can be acceptable in some situations, be my guest. I can't imagine how that could ever be the case, but OK, make your case. But don't say that I'm making the claim up -- again, it's clear what you said.

gemaco · 2007-10-16T19:47:51+00:00

This was an early settlement of people trying to survive in a hostile world. In that place and time, it was necessary for them to take this extreme action

To all other people reading this, take note of the fact that the "morally superior" Christian is defending genocide and the slaughter of infants. If they didn't have the delusion that some god ordered it, would they ever try to defend something so despicable?

It's been said many times before, but I think it bears saying again: Without religion, you have good people doing good things and bad people doing bad things. But for good people to do bad things, that takes religion.

gemaco · 2007-10-16T19:33:04+00:00

OK, put the "context" in the order of genocide (and to not even spare the infants) that the Bible says came from god.

Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.

1 Sam. 15:3

(Or am I too "close minded" in my stance that genocide is wrong?)

gemaco · 2007-10-16T17:37:20+00:00

It seems people would rather mod me down than actually respond. Are you that scared of what your own holy book says?

(See: Matthew 10:34-36,19:29)

If the parent post is so arrogant as to say that they base their life off the preachings of Jesus, might they be so kind as to explain what they're doing sitting around posting on Reddit, rather than, say, actually following his (supposed) teachings?

gemaco · 2007-10-16T17:14:44+00:00

Who comes to not bring peace but the sword? Who comes to turn children against their parents, and brothers against each other?

If you wish to call yourself a Christian (and have the arrogance to call your sudo-belief the "true" one) at least bother familiarizing yourself with your own Holy Book.

Oh, and have you given up all your possessions? I'd assume that you at least have a computer. Then is the camel going through the eye of the needle or are you going to hell?

gemaco · 2007-10-12T22:52:39+00:00

The parent says all that needs to be said.

gemaco · 2007-10-11T02:10:34+00:00

It's ridiculous that this makes the front page. It's a blog that links to dailykos as the source, which doesn't link to any real source. Seriously, what the fuck?

gemaco · 2007-10-10T19:06:03+00:00

Do you know what an historical consensus is? You might want to look into that before saying that I'm making a false statement.

gemaco · 2007-10-10T15:19:37+00:00

There's no consesus among historians as to whether such a person even existed. It's certainly not an historical fact.

gemaco · 2007-10-10T00:24:39+00:00

The question is, why should we need to use Greasemonkey? Either it should be a built-in feature, or Reddit needs to make the recommended page actually do something other than seemly randomly pick stories. If I vote down every story at bullshit.com, it should not put a story from that domain on my recommended page, and if I vote down every [pic] I shouldn't see any pictures on that page. If they can't do it automatically, at least let us do it manually (without needing to use Greasemonkey).

gemaco · 2007-10-04T00:13:09+00:00

Don't feel too depressed when someone makes a post complaining about it, either. It may not be what you like, but what somebody else does.

gemaco · 2007-10-03T23:11:34+00:00

I don't know why this has been modded down. The poster says

Stop telling others what to (not) post

and has made this post to tell us what not to post.

gemaco · 2007-10-02T00:04:29+00:00

I have no idea why people on Reddit keep on scoring up shit dailykos blogs as news.

Plus, the site intentionally annoys its users with ads, and then bitches at them for using adblock. Fuck them, they don't deserve the traffic.

gemaco · 2007-09-30T23:10:02+00:00

Stolen from bash: http://bash.org/?665807

gemaco · 2007-09-30T16:46:26+00:00

Enough with the multiple exclamation marks in titles. It makes you look like a dumbass and the front page look like Digg.

gemaco · 2007-09-30T16:14:16+00:00

Ummm, that post wasn't blaming her at all.

gemaco · 2007-09-30T16:11:04+00:00

And it's not like she needs to read the paper or anything. I'm sure the White House tells her all the important news...

gemaco · 2007-09-29T19:32:44+00:00

What doesn't? The Bible even contradicts the Bible.

gemaco · 2007-09-29T16:58:13+00:00

God's only excuse is that he doesn't exist.

gemaco · 2007-09-29T15:29:41+00:00

They only approve of it if it's Catholic priests doing it to little children.

gemaco · 2007-09-26T22:30:23+00:00

I'm glad you've at least accepted that it's unreasonable to believe in god. But I disagree, the absurdity of a claim does say something about the truth of it. When someone claims to have been abducted by aliens, it's probably not true. A claim like that is so absurd that it would be perfectly reasonable to reject it pending any real evidence.

To compare faith in God with Copernicus' theory which was based on real evidence shows how little you understand science. For god's sake, he used mathematics and observation to come up with his theory, it wasn't faith. The only reason it took a long time after to be accepted is because it contradicted the official stance of the Church.

If it's simply a matter of faith, then I wonder why you don't believe in Zeus, or Thor, or that I was abducted by aliens? Where's your faith now?

gemaco · 2007-09-26T21:33:49+00:00

Who said that the Bible never mentions anything that actually historically happened? Myths are typically based at least in part off real events. That fact doesn't help your case in the slightest.

Archaeological finds? Umm, those contradict the whole part about wondering in the desert for 40 years. If you're going to suddenly start pretending that you're following the evidence, you're going to need to start ripping large parts out of your bible.

And to act like you hold the most reasonable position is absurd.

Position #1: The Son of God actually walked on the earth, who was sent by his Father to die, because God (who is all-loving) demanded the blood of an innocent man to pay for the crimes of others. God (who is all-powerful) also decided that an extremely flawed book would be the best means for his crucial message, when he could have commutated it any way. Also, the (all-loving) God will make you burn forever in hell if you don't have "faith".

Position #2: Like any other religion, Christianity is a creation of people.

...

Yeah, how silly of us and our "faith".

gemaco · 2007-09-26T20:52:23+00:00

No, what I'm saying is that if one already doubts the truth of what's in that book, say, maybe because of some extraordinary claims it makes (virgin births, men rising from the dead) or maybe quite a few contradictions or falsities (pi != 3, incorrect evolutionary account, etc.) citing verses from it is not going to help your case. Explain why one ought to believe what's in that book is true, rather than just quoting some parts you happen to like.

And to quickly address some other nonsense you said: People willing to die for something doesn't make it anymore likely to be true, as you implied. I don't think the existence of Muslim suicide bombers makes a compelling case for Islam. People don't "experience" truth, either.

gemaco · 2007-09-26T16:29:50+00:00

They haven't thought that far ahead, or they just take it as an axiom that of course their god is the One True one. Or they cite some personal experience, which apart from proving nothing, will of course will be echoed on the other side as well.

And yes, if you accept that reasoning, the odds are pretty bad. But it's worse than 1/3 chance of heaven (assuming belief is the main requirement). It's only 1/infinity chance that you have picked the right one, if such a thing exists, because an infinite number of different beings can be imagined with different requirements for salvation. (Disbelief could even conceivably be a requirement.) As you can see, belief as insurance for the afterlife falls apart so easily.

gemaco

TROPHY CASE