Genocide

[Khale]

Why do *some* Christians defend these actions?

Really? I suppose some do, but most that I know regard that particular testament as a relic. Something that was superseded by the New - glitter filled - Testament.

How is an acceptance of the slaughter of infants and children compatible with the view that abortion is murder, and thus wrong?

Still, if I had to argue the point . . . well, lets see . . .

OK. So, these babies are part of a tribe that is against Israel right? Obviously if you're against Israel (At least OT-wise) you're against God. Now, this is enough to take care of those sin-filled adults who are trying to rise up and take down the lord, but what about the babies? Simple: the babies are being trained to hate everything that God does! They desecrate holy scriptures, they shake tiny, softly clenched fists towards the heavens, they even poop with an indescribable anti-deific rage. Truly these abominable spawn deserve what is coming to them.

Fetuses on the other hand are pure. Still untainted by the hateful desires of their tribes. Unable to actively hate good and loving people (as the snot-nosed brats of yore did) it is considered un-christian-y to slaughter them. Now, if an ultrasound were performed that revealed the fetus creating intricate plans to bring about God's downfall . . .well, then it's anybodies game.

 

[Autodidact]

This stuff becomes tiresome after a while ...

It's exaggerated folk history blended with bellicose propaganda aimed at warning potential enemies.Bombast such as this was common throughout the area. Get over it ...

Well, Jay, if it had been left as that then yes, fine. But when it remains as the holy scripture and word of God for millions of people, then its destructive influence and underlying philosophy remain important to address.

 

[Autodidact]

Would you care to demonstrate that 'fact' or are you content to posture righteous indignation?

Jay: I have had many Christians and a couple Jews here at RF defend these actions as right, moral, and indicative of the true nature of the God they worship. I could run through some of the standard apologetics I've read on it here, but they do not include the view (which I share) that they were essentially exaggeration and propaganda of the period.

 

[Autodidact]

Really? I suppose some do, but most that I know regard that particular testament as a relic. Something that was superseded by the New - glitter filled - Testament.

Still, if I had to argue the point . . . well, lets see . . .

OK. So, these babies are part of a tribe that is against Israel right? Obviously if you're against Israel (At least OT-wise) you're against God. Now, this is enough to take care of those sin-filled adults who are trying to rise up and take down the lord, but what about the babies? Simple: the babies are being trained to hate everything that God does! They desecrate holy scriptures, they shake tiny, softly clenched fists towards the heavens, they even poop with an indescribable anti-deific rage. Truly these abominable spawn deserve what is coming to them.

Fetuses on the other hand are pure. Still untainted by the hateful desires of their tribes. Unable to actively hate good and loving people (as the snot-nosed brats of yore did) it is considered un-christian-y to slaughter them. Now, if an ultrasound were performed that revealed the fetus creating intricate plans to bring about God's downfall . . .well, then it's anybodies game.

This is indeed one of the arguments made, in all sincerity, by Christians right here at RF. I find this view very disturbing and important, one of the most common, and destructive, attitudes in the world.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Well, Jay, if it had been left as that then yes, fine. But when it remains as the holy scripture and word of God for millions of people, then its destructive influence and underlying philosophy remain important to address.

Absolutely. But there is a difference between addressing these narratives and demagogically using them to deprecate Judaism and Christianity as a whole.

 

[Khale]

This is indeed one of the arguments made, in all sincerity, by Christians right here at RF. I find this view very disturbing and important, one of the most common, and destructive, attitudes in the world.

Here's the thing though: That view isn't common. Some people do have it, but many, many more believe that it is insanity. Even of those who do believe it wouldn't necessarily follow through with the actions themselves. It's usually a lot of bluster and stretching to help support their viewpoint. It's not exactly responsible, but it's not as threatening as you seem to think.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Jay: I have had many Christians and a couple Jews here at RF defend these actions as right, moral, and indicative of the true nature of the God they worship.

That is, indeed, unfortunate and potentially dangerous. But, out of curiosity, how many Christian and Jewish friends do you have that do not feel this way?

 

[Autodidact]

That is, indeed, unfortunate and potentially dangerous. But, out of curiosity, how many Christian and Jewish friends do you have that do not feel this way?

Truth to tell, I only discuss these issues on the net, so I don't know!

 

[Autodidact]

If, on the other hand, Jews and Christians deny these events occurred, then they need a rationale for disbelieving their purported holy book. And if they believe they occurred but are evil, then they need to account for worshiping an evil God. So they are posed with a difficult trilemma.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

If, on the other hand, Jews and Christians deny these events occurred, then they need a rationale for disbelieving their purported holy book.

Like, perhaps, human authorship?

And if they believe they occurred but are evil, then they need to account for worshiping an evil God.

Yep.

So they are posed with a difficult trilemma.

Nope.

 

[Autodidact]

Like, perhaps, human authorship?

Yep.

Nope.

Why not, is there another option?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Yes, to see the Tanakh as a human yet inspired odyssey of a people trying to understand what they were and how they came to be in the context of a covenant that mandates: "you shall be holy."

 

[spiritually inclined]

Anyway, does that answer your questions?

It does, thank you, I will get back to the rest of this thread later.

 

[spiritually inclined]

So, tell us: based on your "little research," how many Christians and how often? Or are you simply fulminating against some tiny minority of a class in a disingenuous effort to denigrate the class as a whole? Forgive me, but that impresses me as far removed from being "spiritually inclined."

I apologize for my generalizations; I do not think most Christians would defend such acts today; however, in my own dealings with literalists or fundamentalists, I find that they will defend something in their holy texts that they would not ordinarily condone.

James

edit: it should be noted I haven't accused all Christians of believing these things, nor did I claim some specific number of Christians that claim these things. If you think there aren't Christians who will defend every detail of their holy texts as the literal truth of God, then you are ignorant.

 

[spiritually inclined]

Absolutely. But there is a difference between addressing these narratives and demagogically using them to deprecate Judaism and Christianity as a whole.

That is a difference I recognize, and I do not deprecate either religion, although I do believe they are dangerous in their fundamentalist forms. The same goes for Islam and any other religion.

James

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

edit: it should be noted I haven't accused all Christians of believing these things, nor did I claim some specific number of Christians that claim these things.

No, you simply offered ...

Christians often jump to defend this genocide and slaughter of non-human life ...

By which, of course, you meant ...

a small handful of Christians often jump to defend this genocide and slaughter of non-human life ...

Thank you for your clarity ...

 

[Autodidact]

Yes, to see the Tanakh as a human yet inspired odyssey of a people trying to understand what they were and how they came to be in the context of a covenant that mandates: "you shall be holy."

O.K., I can see that as an option. (Not one I subscribe to.)

 

[Autodidact]

No, you simply offered ...By which, of course, you meant ...Thank you for your clarity ...

I wouldn't say a small handful, Jay. I'd say the majority of Christians addressing the issue here at RF have espoused such a view, and a very small number have admitted struggling with the question which should be a difficult one for them.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

That is a difference I recognize, and I do not deprecate either religion, ...

No, you denigrate those who choose them. Painting ugly landscapes with an absurdly broad brush is the methodology of bigotry, not humanism.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I wouldn't say a small handful, Jay.

How many is that?