Nasty Bible passages.

[Drich]

Alright since none of you are willing to sack up let me rephrase. How is what the bible says in those select passages ANY DIFFERENT than how we currently wage war?

WWII Korea Vietnam Iraq and Afghanistan Have all had women, children, live stock, citys and walls far prey to our weapons to numbers that would pail in comparison to what the bible records, but when we look at those instances they are quickly dismissed. They are considered "collateral damage" or they are dismissed as being ISIS or Taliban etc..

Now Let us put things in proper perspective and say ISIS established a foot hold in the continental United States, and they took New england. All of it. Those who could not run they line up and saw their heads off with a dull knife like they did to the reporters, and they broad cast these acts 8 hours aday non stop till all the POWs are dead. All the while destroying and burning out all of our historical sites (same scorched earth stuff they are doing in their currently held territories.)

Now lets say we rally and take everything back, How many men women and children do you think we would insure their safty? how much of their 'stuff' do we preserve and leave unbroken as we push them back?

Can you with a straight face lie to me and tell me we would observe all of the "moral B/S" you douche bags are standing on to judge God?

So I ask again What the problem is with what they did?

[Wyrd of Gawd]

The First Commandment tells the Israelites to invade other people's land, drive them out, and destroy their religious artifacts.

[SofaKingHigh]

Alright since none of you are willing to sack up let me rephrase. How is what the bible says in those select passages ANY DIFFERENT than how we currently wage war?

WWII Korea Vietnam Iraq and Afghanistan Have all had women, children, live stock, citys and walls far prey to our weapons to numbers that would pail in comparison to what the bible records, but when we look at those instances they are quickly dismissed. They are considered "collateral damage" or they are dismissed as being ISIS or Taliban etc..

Now Let us put things in proper perspective and say ISIS established a foot hold in the continental United States, and they took New england. All of it. Those who could not run they line up and saw their heads off with a dull knife like they did to the reporters, and they broad cast these acts 8 hours aday non stop till all the POWs are dead. All the while destroying and burning out all of our historical sites (same scorched earth stuff they are doing in their currently held territories.)

Now lets say we rally and take everything back, How many men women and children do you think we would insure their safty? how much of their 'stuff' do we preserve and leave unbroken as we push them back?

Can you with a straight face lie to me and tell me we would observe all of the "moral B/S" you douche bags are standing on to judge God?

So I ask again What the problem is with what they did?

Now, let me just clarify your argument..... because there are people in the world who commit terrible atrocities, it's OK that this god commanded his people to do it millennia ago?  I mean, seriously?

I'd have thought this god of yours was above the behaviour of his minions....unless, of course, it was these minions that invented said god.

[KevinM1]

Drich, even in those wars you mentioned, we did not specifically target non-combatants as a matter of course. Indeed, our recent military history (the last 60 years or so) is one of pushing for ever more precision in our attacks. Why? Because not giving a shit about (or worse, intentionally targeting) civilians is morally repugnant because it's unnecessary. Yes, collateral damage happens, but it's always seen as unfortunate and is always attempted to be minimized if not mitigated entirely. Killing innocents in war has never helped us ethically or practically.

There's simply no need, even in your idiotic Red Dawn sequel, to target civilians. And before you try to get all indignant, I live in New England. One of the journalists that was beheaded came from, literally, the next town over (look up James Foley). Even with all that, no, intentionally killing civilians is wrong.

[Wyrd of Gawd]

Drich, even in those wars you mentioned, we did not specifically target non-combatants as a matter of course.  Indeed, our recent military history (the last 60 years or so) is one of pushing for ever more precision in our attacks.  Why?  Because not giving a shit about (or worse, intentionally targeting) civilians is morally repugnant because it's unnecessary.  Yes, collateral damage happens, but it's always seen as unfortunate and is always attempted to be minimized if not mitigated entirely.  Killing innocents in war has never helped us ethically or practically.

There's simply no need, even in your idiotic Red Dawn sequel, to target civilians.  And before you try to get all indignant, I live in New England.  One of the journalists that was beheaded came from, literally, the next town over (look up James Foley).  Even with all that, no, intentionally killing civilians is wrong.

In war everyone is a combatant.  The quickest way to end the war is to kill a lot of the other side's civilians since they are the ones who are supporting the armed troops with food and weapons.

[Jehanne]

Alright since none of you are willing to sack up let me rephrase. How is what the bible says in those select passages ANY DIFFERENT than how we currently wage war?

WWII Korea Vietnam Iraq and Afghanistan Have all had women, children, live stock, citys and walls far prey to our weapons to numbers that would pail in comparison to what the bible records, but when we look at those instances they are quickly dismissed. They are considered "collateral damage" or they are dismissed as being ISIS or Taliban etc..

Now Let us put things in proper perspective and say ISIS established a foot hold in the continental United States, and they took New england. All of it. Those who could not run they line up and saw their heads off with a dull knife like they did to the reporters, and they broad cast these acts 8 hours aday non stop till all the POWs are dead. All the while destroying and burning out all of our historical sites (same scorched earth stuff they are doing in their currently held territories.)

Now lets say we rally and take everything back, How many men women and children do you think we would insure their safty? how much of their 'stuff' do we preserve and leave unbroken as we push them back?

Can you with a straight face lie to me and tell me we would observe all of the "moral B/S" you douche bags are standing on to judge God?

So I ask again What the problem is with what they did?

It is immoral and wicked to deliberately murder women and children; this is genocide, the type of thing that the Nazis did.  Your "god" is a Nazi, and it is little wonder that the pogroms against the Jews took place which were "justified" by appealing to Old Testament passages that I listed in my OP.

[dyresand]

Alright since none of you are willing to sack up let me rephrase. How is what the bible says in those select passages ANY DIFFERENT than how we currently wage war?

WWII Korea Vietnam Iraq and Afghanistan Have all had women, children, live stock, citys and walls far prey to our weapons to numbers that would pail in comparison to what the bible records, but when we look at those instances they are quickly dismissed. They are considered "collateral damage" or they are dismissed as being ISIS or Taliban etc..

Now Let us put things in proper perspective and say ISIS established a foot hold in the continental United States, and they took New england. All of it. Those who could not run they line up and saw their heads off with a dull knife like they did to the reporters, and they broad cast these acts 8 hours aday non stop till all the POWs are dead. All the while destroying and burning out all of our historical sites (same scorched earth stuff they are doing in their currently held territories.)

Now lets say we rally and take everything back, How many men women and children do you think we would insure their safty? how much of their 'stuff' do we preserve and leave unbroken as we push them back?

Can you with a straight face lie to me and tell me we would observe all of the "moral B/S" you douche bags are standing on to judge God?

So I ask again What the problem is with what they did?

It is immoral and wicked to deliberately murder women and children; this is genocide, the type of thing that the Nazis did.  Your "god" is a Nazi, and it is little wonder that the pogroms against the Jews took place which were "justified" by appealing to Old Testament passages that I listed in my OP.

Don't bother arguing with Dirch he would gladly defend slavery because the bible say's it's a O.K.

[Hmmm?]

How is what the bible says in those select passages ANY DIFFERENT than how we currently wage war?

...So I ask again What the problem is with what they did?

... Have ye never read what David did? Mat 12:3, Mar 2:25, Luk 6:3)


1 Samuel 20-22, Psalms 52. The story continues through 1Ki 2:9...  Luk 6:27-Luk 6:37.


( Mat 12:29,  Mar 3:27,  1Sa 24:4, 1Sa 26:12)

[Chad32]

Drich, even in those wars you mentioned, we did not specifically target non-combatants as a matter of course.  Indeed, our recent military history (the last 60 years or so) is one of pushing for ever more precision in our attacks.  Why?  Because not giving a shit about (or worse, intentionally targeting) civilians is morally repugnant because it's unnecessary.  Yes, collateral damage happens, but it's always seen as unfortunate and is always attempted to be minimized if not mitigated entirely.  Killing innocents in war has never helped us ethically or practically.

There's simply no need, even in your idiotic Red Dawn sequel, to target civilians.  And before you try to get all indignant, I live in New England.  One of the journalists that was beheaded came from, literally, the next town over (look up James Foley).  Even with all that, no, intentionally killing civilians is wrong.

In war everyone is a combatant.  The quickest way to end the war is to kill a lot of the other side's civilians since they are the ones who are supporting the armed troops with food and weapons.

Quick does not always mean best. Nuking a country would end a war quickly, but it's a horrible thing to do.

[GUBU]

It is immoral and wicked to deliberately murder women and children; this is genocide, the type of thing that the Nazis did.  Your "god" is a Nazi, and it is little wonder that the pogroms against the Jews took place which were "justified" by appealing to Old Testament passages that I listed in my OP.

Don't bother arguing with Dirch he would gladly defend slavery because the bible say's it's a O.K.

He has, it's why he's on my ignore list.