Genocide in the Old Testament

[John V]

So, your definition of an "ideal type" allows for genocide? In any form, or just if god does it?

Yes, if done by or ordered by god. Righteousness and righteous judgment fit into my ideal of a god.

Even taking this into account there's a very simple fact you're seeking to ignore; if humans are imperfect and you're claiming that your god isn't, then it logically follows that the things that are unacceptable for humans must be infinitely more so for god. Things that are a function of our sinful, imperfect nature (violence, jealousy, depravity, dishonesty) cannot be a part of god's, that just follows; a perfect being can possess no attributes that he himself has labelled imperfect.

I'm not ignoring this position, I've covered it repeatedly. It does not logically follow that an Omni god must follow the same rules it sets for created beings.

[Esquilax]

Right, gotcha: double standards, hypocrisy and special pleading are all parts of your ideal type. Just cutting through the chaff, there.

Let me put it another way: Jesus was godly, divine, perfect, because he had something that others did not, right? That being, he was sinless? That was his big leg up over ordinary men? So wouldn't committing a sin- that is, a prohibition that god has placed upon men- by definition make one imperfect?

I mean, isn't that the whole point of heaven, that since everyone is tainted by sin and hence imperfect they can't go without being saved? Aren't sins supposed to be something the devil encourages? Are you therefore saying that the devil is perfect too?

Or will you resort to yet more special pleading and claim that sins are what make us unworthy and imperfect, but not god?

[John V]

Right, gotcha: double standards, hypocrisy and special pleading are all parts of your ideal type. Just cutting through the chaff, there.

If prohibiting 5-year-old humans from drinking alcohol while allowing adults to do so is a double standard, then yes, double standards are part of my ideal type for humans as well as god. Do you disagree?

[Lemonvariable72]

Right, gotcha: double standards, hypocrisy and special pleading are all parts of your ideal type. Just cutting through the chaff, there.

If prohibiting 5-year-old humans from drinking alcohol while allowing adults to do so is a double standard, then yes, double standards are part of my ideal type for humans as well as god. Do you disagree?

There are good demonstrably good, scientifically backed up reasons not let a child drink( Which the ancient Israelites allowed children to drink)
However you fail to address why a omnipotent god would have to resort to genocide in the first place. And secondly
why is it the reasons he gives in the bible are just racism?

[Esquilax]

If prohibiting 5-year-old humans from drinking alcohol while allowing adults to do so is a double standard, then yes, double standards are part of my ideal type for humans as well as god. Do you disagree?

I don't know, would your reaction to 5-year olds drinking be to murder the entire city the act took place in?

Good to know you'll still compare acts that aren't in any way comparable in order to make your dishonest point. Your consistency is good! And I'll always be here to correct your faulty equivocations so that they match the god you believe in.

[John V]

I don't know, would your reaction to 5-year olds drinking be to murder the entire city the act took place in?

Good to know you'll still compare acts that aren't in any way comparable in order to make your dishonest point. Your consistency is good! And I'll always be here to correct your faulty equivocations so that they match the god you believe in.

You're dodging because your claim of a double standard is shown to be faulty.

[Esquilax]

You're dodging because your claim of a double standard is shown to be faulty.

As opposed to dodging the bulk of my post by focusing in on the first line?

I just didn't want to repeat what Lemonvariable said; there's an actual good reason, in a demonstrable, scientific sense, why one wouldn't let a child drink alcohol. That's not a double standard, it's a reasonable employment of the facts at our disposal in order to safeguard the health of a set of people that aren't yet at a mental level to make those decisions themselves.

It'd be a double standard if there were no objectively harmful consequences to the act, but since there are, it's just rational. It's the same reason it isn't a double standard to prefer to crash your car into a fence post rather than a steel wall filled with spikes.

[John V]

As opposed to dodging the bulk of my post by focusing in on the first line?

I just didn't want to repeat what Lemonvariable said; there's an actual good reason, in a demonstrable, scientific sense, why one wouldn't let a child drink alcohol. That's not a double standard, it's a reasonable employment of the facts at our disposal in order to safeguard the health of a set of people that aren't yet at a mental level to make those decisions themselves.

Correct - that's not a double standard because there are differences between the two categories.

Similarly, there are differences between god and man, so differing rules for the two are not a double standard.

[Esquilax]

Correct - that's not a double standard because there are differences between the two categories.

Similarly, there are differences between god and man, so differing rules for the two are not a double standard.

If you're happy holding god to an inferior moral standard, go right ahead.

Now that you've quibbled about meanings yet again, why not discuss why you think you aren't engaging in special pleading here, so I've got something to actually go off of?

Oh, and why you think genocide is in keeping with a perfect being's actions, that'd be a laugh.

I did have an entire post beyond the first line, remember?

[Brian37]

Yes, if done by or ordered by god. Righteousness and righteous judgment fit into my ideal of a god.

So you admit to worshiping a genocidal asshole.