Genocide in the Old Testament

[John V]

I didn't mean personal attacks as in you are insulting me. I meant you were using personal attacks in place of an argument(ad hominem). Rather than try to answer my questions, you simply accused me of being unwilling to accept any answers that would come from the bible, regardless.

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.

Besides, I find being told what I will and will not accept a hundred times more insulting than being called an "asshole."

Funny that you didn't deny that my assessment was correct.

Not should. Would. Communication is a two-way street, which I think is an outrageously simple concept for an omniscient deity to understand.

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

[Bad Writer]

If he can't communicate, then arguing for his existence and begging people to worship him is pointless. That being said, you still persist. Why?

[Brian37]

It does seem to follow that a non-omniscient God could be surprised by the behavior of humans (and maybe other things) and have an emotional reaction to our deeds. That resolves the problem of why the God of the OT seems so surprised at us so many times. I alway thought it was odd that he would get angry over us doing something he knew we were going to do a trilion times infiinity squared years ago.

That presumes that god experiences time the same way we do. There are also arguments re: omniscience/free will based on god experiencing time differently than we do. I go with the non-existence argument lately because I'm tired of this one.

You mean this assumes Allah experiences time the same way we do.

Oh, or you mean this assumes Vishnu experiences time the same way we do.

Wait wait, you mean this assumes Thor experiences time the same way we do.

Hold on, got it, this assumes Yahweh experiences time the same way we do.

On second thought, you mean this assumes my invisible pink unicorn experiences time the same way we do.

Makes perfect sense now. Thanks for clearing that up.

[Minimalist]

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

Yeah...schmucks like you prefer the "god does what he fucking wants because he is fucking god" argument. If only you had some evidence that your fairy tales were real you might be convincing.

But you don't.


So you aren't.

[Bad Wolf]

Besides, I find being told what I will and will not accept a hundred times more insulting than being called an "asshole."

Funny that you didn't deny that my assessment was correct.

There is a difference between an insult and an ad hominem

[Godscreated]

That you can create a straw man from the message doesn't imply that the message isn't clear.

No but there is the fact that there womething like 40,000 denomination of christianity, each with a different interpretation. Of god that is good basically because he says he's good

You've said you're good and have supplied no demonstrable evidence, so do we believe you or wait for your absolute proof.

GC

[Faith No More]

I didn't mean personal attacks as in you are insulting me. I meant you were using personal attacks in place of an argument(ad hominem). Rather than try to answer my questions, you simply accused me of being unwilling to accept any answers that would come from the bible, regardless.

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.

Besides, I find being told what I will and will not accept a hundred times more insulting than being called an "asshole."

Funny that you didn't deny that my assessment was correct.

Not should. Would. Communication is a two-way street, which I think is an outrageously simple concept for an omniscient deity to understand.

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

This is the part where I say, "you're a fucking idiot" and throw my hands in the air in frustration. I think you're more interested in irrelevant, petty bickering and bitching than fruitful discussion. It's like talking to an angry thritieen year-old that just wants to disagree.

[Bad Wolf]

You've said you're good and have supplied no demonstrable evidence, so do we believe you or wait for your absolute proof.

GC

You would have a point except that it is not an extraordinary claim for a person to say they are good. Evidence is not really necessary for claims that you can believe off hand. A deity on the other hand is an extraordinary claim, and so requires extraordinary evidence. In fact, god needs even more extraordinary evidence for the claim that he is good since there is quite a lot of evidence that contradicts that claim.

[John V]

This is the part where I say, "you're a fucking idiot" and throw my hands in the air in frustration. I think you're more interested in irrelevant, petty bickering and bitching than fruitful discussion. It's like talking to an angry thritieen year-old that just wants to disagree.

I think you're willing to dodge and lie to maintain a desperate hold on a position.

[Faith No More]

I think you're willing to dodge and lie to maintain a desperate hold on a position.

Well, no one ever said Christians have a good grasp on reality.