What has gone wrong with the world 2

[Nearly Sane]

You're deluded.

while you are happy with a God that wanted the infant Amalekites slaughtered. You worship child murder.

[ad_orientem]

Look! Getting all defensive cos you know I'm right.

[Robbie]

I don't know what he thinks he's right about floo but I do know he doesn't worship child murder. That is truly stretching a point.

It's saying that people like ourselves, Christians, and Jews, who accept Old Testament stories, eg killing of first born (or may believe they are fictional stories attmpting to put over a truth), are automatically happy with children being killed by people in our time - one might as well say that all Christians from AofC down are at liberty to go around wielding a sword or shooting a gun at infants! Stupid and unfair.

[Nearly Sane]

Look! Getting all defensive cos you know I'm right.

not defensive at all. I note you have given UK dealing with any points. Now, I wouldn't presume that it's because you can't deal with them but until you attempt it, then it will look like that.

[Nearly Sane]

I don't know what he thinks he's right about floo but I do know he doesn't worship child murder. That is truly stretching a point.

It's saying that people like ourselves, Christians, and Jews, who accept Old Testament stories, eg killing of first born (or may believe they are fictional stories attmpting to put over a truth), are automatically happy with children being killed by people in our time - one might as well say that all Christians from AofC down are at liberty to go around wielding a sword or shooting a gun at infants! Stupid and unfair.

What's the difference between the murder if the Amalekite children, or the first born and children being killed now. Ad_O worships a god who sanctioned the first and carried out the second. Given that he believes that god cannot do wrong, he worships the act of child murder. If you worship the same god then so do you.

[Robbie]

So if I have misgivings about euthanasia, I am happy for people to suffer?  Different scenario but same black and white thinking. I'm sure you know exactly what I mean NearlySane.

For those unfamiliar with the Amalekites :-
http://matthiasmedia.com/briefing/2013/08/the-amalekite-genocide/

We who are Christian believe that Christ came to change things and fulfill the law and his teachings are far more relevant to us than the God of the Old Testament, though we seek to understand things that may have happened then.

I have no answer to that.

In the here and now I believe it is wrong to kill except in exceptional circumstances, such as self defence & war, and only then I am grudging about it because of my belief in pacifism.

Jesus would not condone the killing of an infant and neither would I.  What an ancient people did several years BC, whether or not they believed God was on their side, is not relevant to us today, it's at best history and worst, myth.

[Nearly Sane]

So if I have misgivings about euthanasia, I am happy for people to suffer?  Different scenario but same black and white thinking. I'm sure you know exactly what I mean NearlySane.

For those unfamiliar with the Amalekites :-
http://matthiasmedia.com/briefing/2013/08/the-amalekite-genocide/

We who are Christian believe that Christ came to change things and fulfill the law and his teachings are far more relevant to us than the God of the Old Testament, though we seek to understand things that may have happened then.

I have no answer to that.

In the here and now I believe it is wrong to kill except in exceptional circumstances, such as self defence & war, and only then I am grudging about it because of my belief in pacifism.

Jesus would not condone the killing of an infant and neither would I.  What an ancient people did several years BC, whether or not they believed God was on their side, is not relevant to us today, it's at best history and worst, myth.

I note your use of happy to create a strawman.  If you want to throw out all the OT then fine but since Jesus was Jewish and he came not to change a tittle of the law then you throw him out as well. I an happy to accept that to me your morality is by a distance better than that of the god portrayed in the OT but then it's your morality I am accepting nothing to do with god or Jesus.


If ad_o on the other hand, the person I said worshipped child murder, accepts the OT as true and representative if god then he worships child murder.

[floo]

I don't know what he thinks he's right about floo but I do know he doesn't worship child murder. That is truly stretching a point.

It's saying that people like ourselves, Christians, and Jews, who accept Old Testament stories, eg killing of first born (or may believe they are fictional stories attmpting to put over a truth), are automatically happy with children being killed by people in our time - one might as well say that all Christians from AofC down are at liberty to go around wielding a sword or shooting a gun at infants! Stupid and unfair.

There is nothing stupid and unfair about challenging ad_o to support his views!

[SweetPea]

Oh, goodness, as per usual on this forum this thread has veered off the topic.

The way I read the comments was: firstly Ad-O was saying that this was a slippery slope to baby killing actually taking place. Then NS said that was a fallacy. Ad-O replied with "you are deluded" i.e. it could well not be a fallacy but could eventually happen. Ad-O correct me if I am wrong.

But instead you guys pick-up on the other end of NS's comment about babies being killed in the OT.

Stranger things have happened in this crazy world. Back in the 60s/70s if someone had mentioned the notion of transhumanism we would have thought.... never! But this is now really happening.... and the scary part is, it's accepted, and how many are standing up objecting?   

[Nearly Sane]

Oh, goodness, as per usual on this forum this thread has veered off the topic.

The way I read the comments was: firstly Ad-O was saying that this was a slippery slope to baby killing actually taking place. Then NS said that was a fallacy. Ad-O replied with "you are deluded" i.e. it could well not be a fallacy but could eventually happen. Ad-O correct me if I am wrong.

But instead you guys pick-up on the other end of NS's comment about babies being killed in the OT.

Stranger things have happened in this crazy world. Back in the 60s/70s if someone had mentioned the notion of transhumanism we would have thought.... never! But this is now really happening.... and the scary part is, it's accepted, and how many are standing up objecting?

No, the slipoery slooe argument is a fallacy. It doesn't mean that things envisaged will never happen, it means that because you link two things it doesn't mean that the second one will necessarily follow. Besides infanticide as already coveted has happened throughout history. That a an article is published now doesn't mean that it is going to happen because of the article.


I'm not really sure what the link to transhumanism is since the doubts on that were and remain essentially practical. It isn't happening now.

[floo]

Oh, goodness, as per usual on this forum this thread has veered off the topic.

The way I read the comments was: firstly Ad-O was saying that this was a slippery slope to baby killing actually taking place. Then NS said that was a fallacy. Ad-O replied with "you are deluded" i.e. it could well not be a fallacy but could eventually happen. Ad-O correct me if I am wrong.

But instead you guys pick-up on the other end of NS's comment about babies being killed in the OT.

Stranger things have happened in this crazy world. Back in the 60s/70s if someone had mentioned the notion of transhumanism we would have thought.... never! But this is now really happening.... and the scary part is, it's accepted, and how many are standing up objecting?

But babies were killed in the Bible, directly attributable to god.

[wigginhall]

Yes, I don't get why it's off topic to talk about babies being killed by God (in the Bible), when the OP asks the question as to what has gone wrong?  You could argue that it had already gone wrong, when baby-killing and genocide could be valorized in the major Jewish text (OT).   If it is going wrong now, then surely it had gone wrong then?  One interesting question is why this was approved of in an ancient religion, and presumably some Christians at least, still approve of it.    See Craig, for example.

[floo]

Biblical literalists, who believe every word in the Bible is true, would describe the god therein as a god of love, which makes no sense to me at all.

[wigginhall]

I accept that not all Christians see the OT as literally true, and some would criticize the various genocides enacted by God.  Presumably, they say 'God is not like that, these are just stories'.   

But there are still some Christians who see the OT as definitive, and all the atrocities therein.   Again, have a look at Craig.  In fact, I would guess that many evangelicals agree with him.

So the question 'what has gone wrong?' is a good one,  and can be addressed to OT believers.   Why does God kill so liberally?

[Dicky Underpants]

So if I have misgivings about euthanasia, I am happy for people to suffer?  Different scenario but same black and white thinking. I'm sure you know exactly what I mean NearlySane.

For those unfamiliar with the Amalekites :-
http://matthiasmedia.com/briefing/2013/08/the-amalekite-genocide/

Which is a load of old hooey, since we have no way of being certain whether such a people ever existed, still less whether they were eternally bent on opposition to God's plans for Israel. The whole OT narrative of these ancient peoples is hopelessly confused in these early books of the Bible (probably because they were cobbled together from different accounts). We get similar horrific narratives in the Book of Numbers (culminating in the obscenities of Numbers 31) where the supposed narrrator, God's prophet Moses, doesn't know whether he's talking about Moabites or Midianites. All we do know is it ends with the wholesale slaughter of every man, woman and boy, with the young girl virgins being taken to be raped. (The passage in question calls the people in for God's 'justice' Midianites here)

Sure, not all the OT is like this, but it does require some pretty specious argumentation (like the dreck in the link you gave) to exonerate a God who many Christians think is the same God as that of Jesus of the Sermon on the Mount. One can speak of evolution of ideas about God - fair enough. One could equally censure many Christians for simply cherry-picking. And that would apply just as much to the New Testament as  the Old.

Now then, about that original article....

[Rhiannon]

I love this forum sometimes. 

[wigginhall]

Good post, Dicky.   There's also the point, which I think NS made, that Jesus presumably upheld the OT, to the full monty.   I suppose it's possible that he was covertly a revisionist theologian, and argued that these massacres were just stories, and should not be taken too seriously.   Well, maybe.

[floo]

We don't actually know for sure what Jesus thought. The gospels were written well after his death and as nothing was apparently written down at the time he was strutting his stuff, it would be well nigh impossible for him to be quoted word for word. The so called 'eye witnesses' could well have quoted either what they thought he had said, or their own personal interpretation of what he said.

[Robbie]

Oh, goodness, as per usual on this forum this thread has veered off the topic.

The way I read the comments was: firstly Ad-O was saying that this was a slippery slope to baby killing actually taking place. Then NS said that was a fallacy. Ad-O replied with "you are deluded" i.e. it could well not be a fallacy but could eventually happen. Ad-O correct me if I am wrong.

But instead you guys pick-up on the other end of NS's comment about babies being killed in the OT.

Stranger things have happened in this crazy world. Back in the 60s/70s if someone had mentioned the notion of transhumanism we would have thought.... never! But this is now really happening.... and the scary part is, it's accepted, and how many are standing up objecting?

Had to look up 'transhuman', never heard of it before.
I think I understand wht Ad-o meant about 'slippery slope',  new ideas are put into practice, boundaries change. People wonder where it will all end. Nothing to do with religion & I regret joining in with the 'religious' diversion earlier on, forgetting this is 'General Discussion' (despite that I was interested in Dicky's post).

It is an abhorrent idea. What you & Rhiannon said earlier on is right in my opinion.

[Nearly Sane]

Had to look up 'transhuman', never heard of it before.
I think I understand wht Ad-o meant about 'slippery slope',  new ideas are put into practice, boundaries change. People wonder where it will all end. Nothing to do with religion & I regret joining in with the 'religious' diversion earlier on, forgetting this is 'General Discussion' (despite that I was interested in Dicky's post).

It is an abhorrent idea. What you & Rhiannon said earlier on is right in my opinion.

. An ad_I is wrong. Not all new ideas are out into practice and this isn't a new idea, and the religious aspect is not a diversion because it illustrates that it isn't a new idea, and isn't what the 'world is coming to now'

Since to me what SweetPea and Rhiannon seem to be disagreeing, what is that you agree with them both on?

[Robbie]

Agree not all ideas are put into practice & it wouldn't have to follow that boundaries would change, but it's possible and some fear that, which is what I think Ad-o was concerned about. SweetPea too. I've thought it myself occasionally about other things, hoping to be proved wrong but still thought it. would have felt the same without any religious beliefs.

SP & Rhiannon seemed to be in agreement in replies 7&8, diverged somewhat later on but we went off tangent.

[floo]

I wonder what the human species will be like in a few thousand years time, assuming we haven't been daft enough to kill ourselves off by then. I wonder if we will have continued to evolve?

[Robbie]

I think homo sapiens will certainly change and adapt floo.

[Rhiannon]

Agree not all ideas are put into practice & it wouldn't have to follow that boundaries would change, but it's possible and some fear that, which is what I think Ad-o was concerned about. SweetPea too. I've thought it myself occasionally about other things, hoping to be proved wrong but still thought it. would have felt the same without any religious beliefs.

SP & Rhiannon seemed to be in agreement in replies 7&8, diverged somewhat later on but we went off tangent.

No, I was in agreement with NS. Utter bilge of an article.

[Nearly Sane]

Agree not all ideas are put into practice & it wouldn't have to follow that boundaries would change, but it's possible and some fear that, which is what I think Ad-o was concerned about. SweetPea too. I've thought it myself occasionally about other things, hoping to be proved wrong but still thought it. would have felt the same without any religious beliefs.

SP & Rhiannon seemed to be in agreement in replies 7&8, diverged somewhat later on but we went off tangent.

It isn't a tangent. The idea was this was something the world was coming too. That's incorrect as was being pointed out. There is a tendency for people to fear the modern, and that is understandable but that's no excuse for them ignoring what actually happened in the past, and ignoring that embedded in their own beliefs is support for the idea they call out as abhorrent.