Genocide in the Old Testament

[John V]

Well let's see god is perfect Because he does not sin. He determined what is and is not sin and then did not share his Methodology. Then how can we know he didn't simply make it up?

We don't.

If he simply made up the standard by which he is to judged perfect then of he course he is perfect, you or I would be perfect too if we used that method.

Yes, I noted myself that the Biblical claims of god's perfection were a tautology some time ago.

---

And you want people to take you seriously when you talk to atheists on an atheist forum in this manner. You don't like that people like Brian and Min are bringing this argument back to the root problem: that is, your belief in an invisible sky daddy. Your argument over whether or not he's perfect should be completely moot because you can't first prove if he's even there.

Is the argument that he's not perfect completely moot because his critics can't first prove if he's even there?

[Captain Colostomy]

We have established logically that God is not perfect.

Uh, Sparky, could you quit speaking for me?

You should let him. He makes sense, and doesn't need flaming hoops for props.

[Cyberman]

Sure. If you want to continue discussing your intellectual dishonesty, that's fine by me. I mentioned differences based on age or societal authority. I acknowledge that you twisted those to race. Happy?

How can a comparison between what you said and its implications by way of a commentary observation be intellectually dishonest?

[Ryantology]

No, more like, if you tell someone that they can't force someone else into handcuffs and imprison them, but the police and courts can.

Police and judges are subject to the same rules as they enforce and interpret. Another bad comparison.

No, it's recognition of two different classes, and that some rules apply differently to the two.

I agree, but you have it backwards. Above, you compared a sports car to a bike, and state that they are not the same vehicle class, so they should not be held to the same standards, which I find agreeable. What I don't find agreeable is your notion that this justifies the sports car's inability to outpace the bike. You are insisting that the inferior class should be held to higher standards than the superior class, which is what makes no sense to me. It's insane. It's like punishing a dog for not acting like a human.

[John V]

How can a comparison between what you said and its implications by way of a commentary observation be intellectually dishonest?

Because the supposed implications do not necessarily follow. You presumably agree that it's acceptable for different rules to apply to children v. adults, yet you presumably aren't a racist, so no, racism isn't an implication of what I said. Unless you are a racist, or think 5-year-olds should be able to drink alcohol.

---

Police and judges are subject to the same rules as they enforce and interpret. Another bad comparison.

Yes, it's of limited use, but it's closer to the point than yours was.

I agree, but you have it backwards. Above, you compared a sports car to a bike, and state that they are not the same vehicle class, so they should not be held to the same standards, which I find agreeable. What I don't find agreeable is your notion that this justifies the sports car's inability to outpace the bike. You are insisting that the inferior class should be held to higher standards than the superior class, which is what makes no sense to me. It's insane. It's like punishing a dog for not acting like a human.

No, I haven't assessed the standards and determined that one is higher or lower than another. Also note that in the end you'll be held to your own standard. Isn't that reasonable?

[Brian37]

Our standard is universal, your standard is merely swallowing first and retrofitting after the fact.

[John V]

Our standard is universal, your standard is merely swallowing first and retrofitting after the fact.

Your standard isn't universal. Guess you missed the pages on how we kill animals but don't call it murder due to our greater mental capacity.

[Zone]

Is killing humans wrong because God says so or does God say killing humans is wrong because it's wrong? Why can't we just decide if it's wrong or not? In the Bible God actually commands his chosen people to kill other people, in this scenario they would have been in the wrong to turn around and say "Actually no I don't think that would be moral thing to do."

[Lemonvariable72]

How can a comparison between what you said and its implications by way of a commentary observation be intellectually dishonest?

Because the supposed implications do not necessarily follow. You presumably agree that it's acceptable for different rules to apply to children v. adults, yet you presumably aren't a racist, so no, racism isn't an implication of what I said. Unless you are a racist, or think 5-year-olds should be able to drink alcohol.

---

Police and judges are subject to the same rules as they enforce and interpret. Another bad comparison.

Yes, it's of limited use, but it's closer to the point than yours was.

I agree, but you have it backwards. Above, you compared a sports car to a bike, and state that they are not the same vehicle class, so they should not be held to the same standards, which I find agreeable. What I don't find agreeable is your notion that this justifies the sports car's inability to outpace the bike. You are insisting that the inferior class should be held to higher standards than the superior class, which is what makes no sense to me. It's insane. It's like punishing a dog for not acting like a human.

No, I haven't assessed the standards and determined that one is higher or lower than another. Also note that in the end you'll be held to your own standard. Isn't that reasonable?

Yes but since We can't validate gods methodology of sin then why should we use sin as a moral standard as opposed to moral utilitarianism, which is demonstratable and exterior in its methodology. To farther prove this morality superior we should look no farther then the laws of the world. You take any country that has a legal system based in moral utilitarianism like say Canada and compare that say Saudi Arabia where they have a sin based system and what do we see? In Canada you have a world leading education system, universal heath care and a world leader in technology. In Saudi Arabia you have a nation that is technologically backwards that still condones the death penalty for things like adultery. Which do you prefer to live in?

[Bad Wolf]

Why aren't there any other theists leaping to back John up? What a mystery!