Genocide in the Old Testament

[Esquilax]

Oh, that? I stand by it. If the Bible took the attributes of god and put them in a list called "attributes of a perfect god," you wouldn't say "Oh, crap, the god of the bible is perfect!" You're being disingenuous.

No, in that case the bible would be disingenuous; it might be your holy book, but it doesn't get to redefine words any more than any other text does. If the bible sought to list the attributes of water, and one of those attributes was "is made of cheese," then the bible's definition of water would be wrong, and nobody would be dishonest in saying that cheese isn't water.

Words have meanings, and holy texts aren't exempt from having to follow those. The word "perfect" means something, and based on its objective meaning the god of the bible does not measure up; what you're trying to do is call god perfect based on an (incorrect according to the dictionary) definition that's unique to the bible, and then swap it out for the dictionary meaning when it's convenient. It's a linguistic trick, it's disingenuous on its own, and it's not what you're really arguing for.

The best one could say is that, according to the attributes of perfection listed in the bible, god would be perfect. Congrats, you've defined a label into existence; god is perfect only by redefining the word perfect to mean "acceptably imperfect."

Ah, the god-would-necessarily-do-what-I-think-he-would-do argument. Haven't heard that one in a few hours.

As opposed to your position, where you don't bother saying what you think god would do, only denying what he wouldn't based on the uncomfortable accusations of those you disagree with, all the while implicitly thinking that god-would-necessarily-do-what-you-think-he-would-do, right?