(December 29, 2014 at 5:55 pm)Lek Wrote: Were the Amalekites better off dying quickly by the sword or dying in the way most people do?

What's that even supposed to mean?

A natural death is certainly preferable than being slaughtered to the last child by a raving band of goat fucking savages.

(December 29, 2014 at 3:54 pm)abaris Wrote: I tend to agree that Hitler didn't give much about catholicism, but not for the reasons you give. He was certainly not an atheist and invoked the Lord not only in public speeches but also in his writings and in private company.

It's also worth noting that he was the accepted leader of Germany by protestants as well as Catholics because of the fundamental bullshit in the bible of every leader being sent by god.

Also I would like your take on figures such as Ante Pavelic and his theocracy in Croatia with monks running his concentration camps. And there's of course good old Francisco Franco in Spain, darling boy of the church and a rather weak one at that, since he only managed to kill 250.000 people.

Let's also not forget Augusto Pinochet in Chile, who managed to kill about the same number. Brought to the poor chilenian people courtesy of the USA and supported by the church, since he was a good catholic.

The list could be continued.

Give me a break! Are you telling me that Franco killed 250,000 people in Spain because he was a catholic? The same with Pavelic and Pinochet.

(December 29, 2014 at 6:06 pm)Lek Wrote: Give me a break! Are you telling me that Franco killed 250,000 people in Spain because he was a catholic? The same with Pavelic and Pinochet.

Not because but in spite. And there goes your argument of no christian killing, since the love thy neighbour bullshit exists.

And I guess, now Josef Stalin and Pol Pot didn't kill people because they were atheists, or is there suddenly a double standard?

There were no Amalekites. They were written into the story to be the 'bad guys.'

(December 29, 2014 at 5:55 pm)Lek Wrote: Were the Amalekites better off dying quickly by the sword or dying in the way most people do?

Well then by that line of reasoning you should be all for abortion, right?

Aborted baby souls go right to jesus, not having to live a life of temptation. Not a chance of going to hell.


You do know the slaughter of the Amalekites was for what happened generations ago, right?

jesus and his revenge hit. forgetaboutit!

(December 29, 2014 at 6:11 pm)Lek Wrote: I also saw a list of some modern day atheist leaders and I granted that atheists can be good leaders of nations.

Which was why you brought up the dictators at all, right. Your entire point disappears if you weren't trying to intimate that atheist leaders were more likely to be immoral by default, so don't try to backpedal now.

Quote: "True" christianity does only have positive attributes, but that's not true for christains. Some act better than others.

But that's not true, or else "true" christianity would require you to ignore any bad thing that was ever said in the new testament. Jesus was all for slavery, and following his example would lead one to ignore all pleas for help from those not of the tribe of Israel (who were like dogs, in Jesus' own words), so are you for those things? Or is "true" christianity about following Jesus except where Jesus did and said immoral things, in which case aren't you just using your own morality and then giving the credit to the book you're having to outright ignore, just to call it good?

(December 29, 2014 at 6:11 pm)Lek Wrote: Kark Marx's anti-religious stance has led to more murders and persecution through communist governments than I care to count and still goes on to this day.

Yes, I'm sure that's what you want to believe. But Marx only mentioned religion once. In his work "A Contribution to the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right". In 1843. And it's a simple criticism, not a call for it's abolishment. The most famous quote by Karl Marx is also pretty much the only one on the subject.

Quote: Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.

(December 29, 2014 at 5:55 pm)Lek Wrote: No one has ever answered the question that I keep asking. Were the Amalekites better off dying quickly by the sword or dying in the way most people do?

You mean were they better off dying piecemeal due to age, injury, sickness, or starvation while continuing to reproduce and maintain or grow their population, or was it better to be massacred by an invading army of religious zealots who might leave some of them alive for purposes of slavery and rape?

I'm thinking the former is a much better option, to be honest.

(December 29, 2014 at 8:07 pm)h4ym4n Wrote:

(December 29, 2014 at 5:55 pm)Lek Wrote: Were the Amalekites better off dying quickly by the sword or dying in the way most people do?

Well then by that line of reasoning you should be all for abortion, right?

Aborted baby souls go right to jesus, not having to live a life of temptation. Not a chance of going to hell.


You do know the slaughter of the Amalekites was for what happened generations ago, right?

jesus and his revenge hit. forgetaboutit!

No, I'm not for abortion or any other murder. The slaughter of the Amalekites was to rid the Israelites of their biggest enemy who was bent on destroying Israel. Israel had been chosen to bring forth the messiah. There was no revenge involved. Christ died for the Amalekites, as well as for the Israelites.