(October 5, 2014 at 3:45 pm)C4RM5 Wrote: The only people God ordered the destruction of where the nations that were wicked

Oh c'mon. Are you so blinded by your faith that you are can't see how immoral that sounds? How can an ENTIRE nation (like the Amalekites, for one example) right down to the infants -- not to mention their domsticated livestock -- be considered so wicked to warrant death, simply because *their leader* has displeased your god by resisting the Hebrew invasion of their lands? You are attempting to morally defend genocide here.

The people had a chance to leave the nation before it was destroyed, there are examples of this.

(October 5, 2014 at 4:16 pm)C4RM5 Wrote: The people had a chance to leave the nation before it was destroyed, there are examples of this.

You mean like how Jews had the chance to leave Germany before the Nazis started hunting them?

Why are you changing topics, but no not like Germany, the example I talk about is where the person leaves their nation and joins Israel.

(October 5, 2014 at 4:16 pm)C4RM5 Wrote: The people had a chance to leave the nation before it was destroyed, there are examples of this.

Really? How is an infant or a donkey supposed to know they have a chance to leave?

If God knew that they wouldn't become wicked in later life he would have let them live. I am talking about babies.

?

I read babies boobies

(October 5, 2014 at 4:26 pm)C4RM5 Wrote: If God knew that they wouldn't become wicked in later life he would have let them live. I am talking about babies.

...and its this kind of reasoning that leads many non-believers to call Christianity amoral (and even immoral). You merely are creating (again) another ad hoc defense of a Biblical story that contains nothing to support that defense. Biblical genocide is okay to Christianity because they ASSUME God only kills those worthy of death. That, is objectively an immoral position to hold, and makes the ancient Hebrews (and their god) the moral equivalent of Hitler, Stalin, or Pol Pot (all of which used the exact same reasoning to defend their immoral acts).

(October 5, 2014 at 3:27 pm)C4RM5 Wrote:

(October 5, 2014 at 2:54 pm)Fidel_Castronaut Wrote: lol, what? You being serious?

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/No_True_Scotsman

1. You said christians aren't doing/don't do [x] (in this case, sacrificing people or animals)

2. I showed you definitive proof that this is false and, in fact, christians are doing that , today, right now, to children who they have labeled as witches based on Christian beliefs and doctrines or variants thereof.

3. You then claimed that, in a manner of speaking, they aren't following true Christianity and are thus not real christians (they're making up their own beliefs and ideas).

4. You have used the no true scotsman fallacy to disavow the evidence to allow your initial claim to hold true.

I never said they weren't doing it, I said I don't agree with it.

(October 5, 2014 at 11:57 am)C4RM5 Wrote:

(October 5, 2014 at 11:33 am)Surgenator Wrote: Christianity is based on a amoral concept of scapegoating. It says that you can sacrifice an innocent life to forgive the mistakes I made. It's equovalent to me killing a baby so I can be forgiven for looking at porn. The core concept is fundamentally amoral.

I don't know what you are mistaking with christainity but I can assure you we do not sacrafice people or animals.