tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post2421387307812812354..comments2023-10-10T08:02:18.073-04:00Comments on Rationally Speaking: If god says so, murder is okUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger31125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-63582890311015527242007-04-21T01:55:00.000-04:002007-04-21T01:55:00.000-04:00If God is "God", after all, He can be angry with t...<B>If God is "God", after all, He can be angry with the Israelites for not dealing with another people group in the manner He felt best. If God is outside of time, He could see the destruction that the people group in question may have wrought on humanity. He could also see that that particular group had no interest in being redeemed by God.</B><BR/><BR/>Idiotic god these people have got, methinks. If it is out of time and knows whatever will happen (or not) why is the idiot "angry" at anything? What a childish, brainless kind of thing to believe in... It does not even resist the minimum amount of thinking, sheesh.<BR/><BR/>Now, the theory of evolution is called Evolutionstheorie or Abstammungslehre in German. At least nowadays. Entwicklung is most commonly used as "development" than evolution, by what I've seen. I haven't read "Mein Kampf" either, so who knows what meaning of Entwicklung is being used there...<BR/><BR/>Anyway, what does it matter? What the brain dead religious people seem to willingly ignore is that science works differently from religion -- that's why science works. Even if people DID use some theories as support for whatever horrible things they did, science has itself corrected much of that over time. Changed the theories themselves, maybe, or their applications, in some cases. Or not. If a theory is consistent with reality (and therefore considered provisionally "true") or not has nothing to do with what people decide to use them for, from a purely scientific point of view. Sociologically, that is more of a worthy discussion.<BR/><BR/>JAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-36109999481204042092007-04-20T15:58:00.000-04:002007-04-20T15:58:00.000-04:00Anonymous:Who said anything about anger or violenc...Anonymous:<BR/><BR/>Who said anything about anger or violence being unimaginable? My only mention of knowledgeable people is in debunking Cal's lies, which is quite easy.<BR/><BR/>You got a point? If so, state it clearly, because your particular piece of prose is meaningless as it stands.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-84555384253689152542007-04-20T15:42:00.000-04:002007-04-20T15:42:00.000-04:00It is unimaginable, fcd, that "knowledgeable peopl...It is unimaginable, fcd, that "knowledgeable people" would HAVE ANY use whatsoever for anger or violence. <BR/><BR/>however...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-12241396123362119622007-04-20T14:54:00.000-04:002007-04-20T14:54:00.000-04:00Cal:No matter how hard it may be for you, evolutio...Cal:<BR/><BR/>No matter how hard it may be for you, evolution had zero to do with Nazism, and Martin Luther's Antisemitism had a lot to do.<BR/><BR/>Let me point out for you the fallacy you are using; it is known as "cherry-picking". You are quoting one person's opinion and holding it as the be-all and end-all, the Final Word on Hitlerism; and yet at the same time you carelessly discount the opinions of Hitler himself and most of his followers.<BR/><BR/>It won't do; you can't simply hand-wave away the fact that Hitler declared himself a Christian, and his followers declared themselves Christians, and while a minority of German Christians opposed Hitlerism a much larger majority went along with it, because he was oh-so-effective in combating those evil Jews, godless Communists and filthy homosexuals.<BR/><BR/>Notice a pattern here, Cal?<BR/><BR/>Also, do you know anything about the books burned by the Nazis, Cal? Let me help you get an education on this, too.<BR/><BR/>One of the lists of books the Nazi banned and burned includes this little gem:<BR/><BR/><B>6. Writings of a philosophical and social nature whose content deals with the false scientific enlightenment of primitive Darwinism and Monism (Häckel).<BR/><BR/>[Source for German text: pp. 143-144 of Strothmann, Dietrich. Nationalsozialistische Literaturpolitik: ein Beitrag zur Publizistik im Dritten Reich. Bonn: H. Bouvier, 1968. Translation by Dr. Roland Richter.]</B><BR/><BR/>How come? Didn't you find some kind of fool who claimed that Häckel was at the very root of Nazism? My oh my, apparently that "Darwinist" was wrong, and you with him! Imagine that!<BR/><BR/>Another list, the "Blacklist for Public Libraries and Commercial Lending Libraries", included this:<BR/><BR/><B>c) All writings that ridicule, belittle or besmirch the Christian religion and its institution, faith in God, or other things that are holy to the healthy sentiments of the Volk.</B><BR/><BR/>Ouch, Cal. Apparently the Nazi were unaware that they were supposed to be evolutionists and anti-Christian!<BR/><BR/>Take my suggestion, Cal: stop spouting off on things you don't know, copying and pasting idiocy from some preacher's Website, because knowledgeable people don't take long in proving your points completely moot.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-59557953627724896392007-04-20T14:06:00.000-04:002007-04-20T14:06:00.000-04:00Re: to the question of Hitler's Christianity"Much...Re: to the question of Hitler's Christianity<BR/><BR/>"Much of the opposition to the eugenic movement came from German Christians. Although Hitler was baptized a Catholic, he was never excommunicated, and evidently 'considered himself a good Roman Catholic' as a young man, and at times used religious language. He clearly had strong, even vociferous, anti-Christian feelings as an adult, as did probably most Nazi party leaders. As a consummate politician, though, he openly tried to exploit the church. Hitler once revealed his attitude toward Christianity when he bluntly stated that religion is an:<BR/><BR/>' ... organized lie [that] must be smashed. The State must remain the absolute master. When I was younger, I thought it was necessary to set about [destroying religion] with dynamite. I've since realized there's room for a little subtlety ... The final state must be . in St. Peter's Chair, a senile officiant; facing him a few sinister old women . The young and healthy are on our side . it's impossible to eternally hold humanity in bondage and lies ... [It] was only between the sixth and eighth centuries that Christianity was imposed upon our peoples ... Our peoples had previously succeeded in living all right without this religion. I have six divisions of SS men absolutely indifferent in matters of religion. It doesn't prevent them from going to their death with serenity in their souls.'<BR/><BR/>From a dialog between these two guys: http://www.caseagainstfaith.com/<BR/>submissions/hitler.htm<BR/><BR/>calAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-67692838186359154022007-04-20T13:52:00.000-04:002007-04-20T13:52:00.000-04:00Don't care if it was deliberately mentioned or not...Don't care if it was deliberately mentioned or not, fcd. Implication, intention and direction is 10/10th of the law. <BR/> <BR/>"There is an hypothesis that has not yet adequately been considered. Staunch evolutionist, Sir Arthur Keith claims:<BR/><BR/> The German Fuhrer . . . consciously sought to make the practice of Germany conform to the theory of evolution. 1<BR/><BR/>Elsewhere, Keith wrote:<BR/><BR/> The leader of Germany is an evolutionist, not only in theory, but, as millions know to their cost, in the rigor of its practice. For him, the national "front" of Europe is also the evolutionary "front;" he regards himself, and is regarded, as the incarnation of the will of Germany, the purpose of that will being to guide the evolutionary destiny of its people. 2<BR/><BR/>Hitler used the German word for evolution (Entwicklung) over and over again in his book. In fact, it is not unreasonable to suppose that the very title itself of Hitler's book ("My Struggle"), was influenced by Darwin's subtitle, "Struggle for Existence," and by the German advocate of evolution, Ernst Haeckel, who published a book, in 1905, entitled, Der Kampf um den Entwicklungs-Gedanken ("The Struggle over Evolutionary Thinking").<BR/><BR/>In Hitler's Mein Kampf, he spoke of "lower human types." He criticized the Jews for bringing "Negroes into the Rhineland" with the aim of "ruining the white race by the necessarily resulting bastardization." He spoke of "Monstrosities halfway between man and ape" and lamented the fact of Christians going to "Central Africa" to set up "Negro missions," resulting in the turning of "healthy . . . human beings into a rotten brood of bastards." In his chapter entitled "Nation and Race," he said, "The stronger must dominate and not blend with the weaker, thus sacrificing his own greatness. Only the born weakling can view this as cruel, but he, after all, is only a weak and limited man; for if this law did not prevail, any conceivable higher development (Hoherentwicklung) of organic living beings would be unthinkable." A few pages later, he said, "Those who want to live, let them fight, and those who do not want to fight in this world of eternal struggle do not deserve to live." 3<BR/><BR/>The Ascent of Racism<BR/>by Paul G. Humber, M.S.<BR/><BR/>calAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-28272084775897284032007-04-20T11:43:00.000-04:002007-04-20T11:43:00.000-04:00Cal:not the old lie about Hitler being an evolutio...Cal:<BR/><BR/>not the old lie about Hitler being an evolutionist, please! I know you are delusional, but this one has been debunked <I>ad nauseam</I>!<BR/><BR/><BR/>One: <B>read <I>Mein Kampf</I> and count how many times it mentions Darwin and/or evolution</B>.<BR/><BR/>You'll probably be surprised to find that the answer is <B>ZERO</B>.<BR/><BR/>Next, repeat the exercise and count mentions of God and Divine Will.<BR/><BR/>You'll probably be just as surprised to find that the answer is <B>not</B> zero.<BR/><BR/><BR/>Two: Darwin wrote of how things <B>are</B>, not of how things <B>ought to be</B>. What the Nazi thought and did was way more akin to animal husbandry (which did not need <I>On the origin of species</I> to be well known to people from time immemorable) than evolution in action.<BR/><BR/><BR/>Three: allow me to laugh very loud at your idea that "some Jews thought this very thing (<I>see[ing] Israel as nothing more than another State, and ... agree[ing] with some Palestinians on secular matters</I>) right up to the time that they were drug off to the gas chambers." Since when was there a State of Israel before and during World War II?<BR/><BR/>And once again, remember the motto who those who <B>dragged</B> (not <B>drug</B>) Jews inside gas chambers wore on their belts: it was <I>Gott mit uns</I>, which for the ignorant among us translates to <I>God [is] with us</I>.<BR/><BR/><BR/>Now, back on track: the occasional agreement between secularists and moderate theists of any ethnic origin and denomination is vastly overshadowed by the more than occasional agreement between fundies of any stripe. To all but the most zealously deluded, Israel is not "the Jews", any more than Italy is "the Catholics" or Saudi Arabia "the Muslims" or Germany "the Lutherans" and so on.<BR/><BR/>Have you got anything useful to contribute to the discussion, Cal, or are you simply going on being wrong on every single count?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-83054549318907173602007-04-20T11:14:00.000-04:002007-04-20T11:14:00.000-04:00fcd "Some secularists - including secular Jews - s...fcd "Some secularists - including secular Jews - see Israel as nothing more than another State, and they may well agree with some Palestinians on secular matters."<BR/><BR/>I know that. I also know that some Jews thought this very thing right up to the time that they were drug off to the gas chambers. <BR/><BR/>They were not being persecuted for necessarily being "religious" Jews either. They were in fact being singled out as matter of Darwin's & and then Sir Arthur Keith's view on race and evolution. <BR/><BR/>On this matter Sir Arthur said, <BR/> <BR/>‘The German Führer, as I have consistently maintained, is an evolutionist; he has consciously sought to make the practice of Germany conform to the theory of evolution.’<BR/><BR/>Reference: Keith, A., Evolution and Ethics, Putnam, NY, USA, p. 230, 1947. <BR/><BR/>calAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-69413933176799048032007-04-20T10:58:00.000-04:002007-04-20T10:58:00.000-04:00Suf, "They think the Israelis stole their land.""S...Suf, "They think the Israelis stole their land."<BR/><BR/>"Stole" tends to be a rather arbitrary term when one realizes all the nations that have either had partial control or were incomplete control, for a time, of Isarel as the Romans were in NT times. <BR/><BR/>"..but I don't see how it helps to live an apocalypse inside your head."<BR/><BR/>I'd try to take the last word', :) but I don't quite understand what it is you are saying here. <BR/><BR/>If you are thinking that some people would actually look forward to a huge showdown between many nations over Israel (or directed AT Israel) , I don't think that is the case at all. <BR/><BR/>Commenting on it, for myself, is just a matter of trying to recognize the 'signs of the times' that we live in and make sense of it just like anyone else would. On a presumably rational level, the 'global' anger that is often directed at Israel is almost beyond making sense of. <BR/><BR/>calAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-30559045077411185102007-04-20T10:06:00.000-04:002007-04-20T10:06:00.000-04:00Cal:secularists on the same side of Islamists? Wha...Cal:<BR/><BR/>secularists on the same side of Islamists? Whatever it is you are smoking, it must be GOOD!<BR/><BR/>Some secularists - including secular Jews - see Israel as nothing more than another State, and they may well agree with some Palestinians on secular matters.<BR/><BR/>That, by the way, does not imply that "secularists" think that Israel is not worth defending; I, for one, think evil actions are not worth defending, whether they are carried out by the State of Israel or any other State, or by individuals of any inclination, even if these individuals claim divine inspiration.<BR/><BR/>On the other hand, fundies of all stripes - Jews, Christians, Muslims, whatever - tend to agree on all sorts of matters (you need to look no further than the death threats issued by fundies of ALL three "major religions" about a Gay Pride parade in Jerusalem).<BR/><BR/>So, please, keep your insults straight: it is judeochristislamist fundies, not the non-existing "secu-Islamist world" of your fantasy, who are a threat to civilized coexistence.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-56283366106658378802007-04-19T16:53:00.000-04:002007-04-19T16:53:00.000-04:00But if it weren't for God's Word, some force to re...<I>But if it weren't for God's Word, some force to revolt and complain against, virtually no one would care a bit if Jews inhabited the land of Israel.<BR/><BR/>It's an thoroughly absurd thing to want to do UNLESS some people actually think that they can wipe out all memory of Israel and therefore God from the earth by doing so. </I><BR/><BR/>They think the Israelis stole their land. It's more complicated than that, but I don't see how it helps to live an apocalypse inside your head.<BR/><BR/>I'll give you the last word.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-75053547671651046252007-04-19T16:41:00.000-04:002007-04-19T16:41:00.000-04:00S: "secu-islamist?"Merely means that some seculari...S: "secu-islamist?"<BR/><BR/>Merely means that some secularists may be on the same side as Muslims on SOME issues.<BR/><BR/>Some secularists are on the same side as Islamics, on the matter of Israel, for instance. But if it weren't for God's Word, some force to revolt and complain against, virtually no one would care a bit if Jews inhabited the land of Israel.<BR/><BR/>It's the old "who's gonna be the boss of me" problem.<BR/><BR/><BR/>S: "For them the Book of Joshua is a TYPE of modern day expansion in the Holy Land. But this certainly adds to the intractability of the situation.."<BR/><BR/>Well, really, and whose fault is that? <BR/><BR/>Can 99.99 % of the world (and the Arabic world) be justified about wanting to push teeny tiny Israel into the sea and not just look utterly insane for wanting to do this? It's an thoroughly absurd thing to want to do UNLESS some people actually think that they can wipe out all memory of Israel and therefore God from the earth by doing so. <BR/><BR/>If God is God, their satisfaction will be a VERY brief and fleeting thing. <BR/>calAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-46877274304423309812007-04-18T20:20:00.000-04:002007-04-18T20:20:00.000-04:00And WHAT IS the real difference between modern day...<I>And WHAT IS the real difference between modern day Israel and the ref to the Promised land?</I> <BR/><BR/>Browsing through the pages of<BR/><A HREF="http://haaretz.com/" REL="nofollow">Haaretz</A> (an Israeli newpaper), and especially reading the comments in the various threads, I get the impression that for some in Israel (a minority, but a substantial minority?- I am open to correction) there is no difference. For them the Book of Joshua is a TYPE of modern day expansion in the Holy Land. But this certainly adds to the intractability of the situation, and could even bring us back to the subject of Massimo's post.<BR/><BR/>Having said that, my sympathies are still with the Israelis, because I do not believe any protestations by Palestinian orgaizations that they do not wish to drive the Israelis into the sea.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-88098996649015469362007-04-18T18:37:00.000-04:002007-04-18T18:37:00.000-04:00Suffenus - You beat me to it. "Secu-islamist" - is...Suffenus - You beat me to it. "Secu-islamist" - is that a proto Islamo-Fascist or an end of times Christo-Zorastrian (sic), or perhaps an Atheo-Bhudo-Shinto-Jainist? The possibilities are endless when Cal gets her Fundie-Christian written boots on!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-43330091192429494422007-04-18T18:28:00.000-04:002007-04-18T18:28:00.000-04:00You know you are in La-La-Land when you see someon...You know you are in La-La-Land when you see someone mixing "secular" (i.e. referring to anything <B>but</B> religion) with "Islamic" (i.e. referring to a specific religion).<BR/><BR/>Cal, I suggest you up your dose of medication: your grip on reality is slipping even more than usual.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-19908895824595172212007-04-18T15:36:00.000-04:002007-04-18T15:36:00.000-04:00secu-islamist?Oh. Dan al-Dennettsecu-islamist?<BR/><BR/>Oh. Dan al-DennettAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-35082607026921066872007-04-18T15:10:00.000-04:002007-04-18T15:10:00.000-04:00"P.S. The reason I used the phrase Promised Land w..."P.S. The reason I used the phrase Promised Land was so that no one would attempt to confuse the discussion with a rant about modern day Israel. Never thought that Promised Land would be all that confusing a term."<BR/><BR/>I'm just not that sophisticated of a person, suf. Possibly you are more informed about scripture than I. <BR/><BR/>And WHAT IS the real difference between modern day Israel and the ref to the Promised land? Neither ought to be worth defending as far as most of the secu-islamist world is concerned. So goes the rhetoric anyway. And so I say if it is not at all worth defending, drop all emotional appeals about the place and forget about it. <BR/><BR/>But, ah ha! <BR/><BR/>By some odd twist of fate, no one left on THE EARTH seems able to forget about Israel, fulfilling the prophecy that 'I will make her (Israel) a cup of trembling for all the nations...' (paraphrase) <BR/><BR/>real strange situation that is, isn't it.<BR/>calAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-82887241603604827962007-04-18T13:29:00.000-04:002007-04-18T13:29:00.000-04:00CalMy whole point was that the conquest of Canaan ...Cal<BR/><BR/>My whole point was that the conquest of Canaan was commanded by God, it was not an example of permissive will.<BR/><BR/>If you really think God gets the big picture better than you do, stop your pitiful attempts at justification, such as the one in your first comment under "RE: wars, ideology and whatnot". <BR/><BR/><I>Suf, "Is it not true that God commanded the Israelites to drive the existing tribes out of the promised land?"<BR/><BR/>I don't know. I looked up the term "promised land", and can't really find indication of that sort of activity but I am not sure what the point is even if it could be found. </I><BR/><BR/>You don't know? Sure you know. You didn't have to look up Promised Land. Just read the Book of Joshua, if you know where to find it.<BR/><BR/>P.S. The reason I used the phrase Promised Land was so that no one would attempt to confuse the discussion with a rant about modern day Israel. Never thought that Promised Land would be all that confusing a term.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-67169092720446301562007-04-18T13:08:00.000-04:002007-04-18T13:08:00.000-04:00Suf, "Is it not true that God commanded the Israel...Suf, "Is it not true that God commanded the Israelites to drive the existing tribes out of the promised land?"<BR/><BR/>I don't know. I looked up the term "promised land", and can't really find indication of that sort of activity but I am not sure what the point is even if it could be found. <BR/><BR/>The world's history is full of one people group over taking another, one group taking over the lands of the other, etc. What makes it less moral for God to set apart some area of land for a people He wished to call His own? <BR/><BR/>So because He CAN do ANYTHING, He should not ask or seek to do anything? In that, we would be suggesting that ALL interventionism is bad. But is it really?<BR/><BR/><BR/>"That in some cases he "hardened the hearts" of the opposition, so that they would be utterly destroyed?"<BR/><BR/>I understand that. It does not happen without the Pharaoh, for instance, making some serious moves that showed himself to be against God (and thus His people) before the hardening of heart happened. It is a progression of events and feelings that I think the individual gives their assent to before it takes place. That is, it is not random. <BR/><BR/>"And that he was angry with the Israelites for not utterly dispatching the Jebusites and Canaanites, and withdrew his favour from them as a result?"<BR/><BR/>If God is "God", after all, He can be angry with the Israelites for not dealing with another people group in the manner He felt best. If God is outside of time, He could see the destruction that the people group in question may have wrought on humanity. He could also see that that particular group had no interest in being redeemed by God. <BR/><BR/><BR/>"I don't see how this jibes with your interpretation. It was not permissive will, it was a command."<BR/><BR/>Yeah, and the first lie that was ever foisted on mankind was, "Hath God said".. <BR/><BR/>Fine to search stuff out and everything, but if we come to the end of where our own wisdom will take us, sometimes it really is best to accept the fact that there is Someone out there that really gets the big picture better than we do. <BR/><BR/>calAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-56318566166902836522007-04-17T20:33:00.000-04:002007-04-17T20:33:00.000-04:00GCB,interesting point. I doubled checked, and the ...GCB,<BR/><BR/>interesting point. I doubled checked, and the Nature commentary refers to the Free University of Amsterdam, specifying that only 27% of the students from that institution involved in the experiment believed in the Bible. 'round here that's considered pretty secular... :)Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09099460671669064269noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-75657693595426703782007-04-17T19:31:00.000-04:002007-04-17T19:31:00.000-04:00Just a minor correction, but the *Free University*...Just a minor correction, but the *Free University* of Amsterdam (VUA) is definitely NOT secular. It is calvinistic. While this is not particularly visible in the curriculum, the Free University does have a higher percentage religous students than state run universities in the Netherlands. MP, are sure the university wasn't the *University of Amsterdam* (UvA)? <BR/><BR/>GCB.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-46129666881509324402007-04-17T14:42:00.000-04:002007-04-17T14:42:00.000-04:00CalIs it not rue that God commanded the Israelites...Cal<BR/><BR/>Is it not rue that God <I>commanded</I> the Israelites to drive the existing tribes out of the promised land? That in some cases he "hardened the hearts" of the opposition, so that they would be utterly destroyed? And that he was angry with the Israelites for not utterly dispatching the Jebusites and Canaanites, and withdrew his favour from them as a result?<BR/><BR/>I don't see how this jibes with your interpretation. It was not permiisive will, it was a command.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-43178651691722497152007-04-17T13:30:00.000-04:002007-04-17T13:30:00.000-04:00fcd: (I mean, an order to exterminate another trib...fcd: (I mean, an order to exterminate another tribe -including women, children, and old people - sounds pretty in equivocal to me; very little space for ambiguity and nuance!).."<BR/><BR/>In scripture, one sees the reoccurrence of what seems like two levels of God's will. "God's Will" and God's permissive will. <BR/><BR/>In the above mentioned passage of scripture, that is evidence of God's permissive will. Meaning, it was not in the Jewish nation's best interest to be lead by a king, but God allowed the Jews have what they wanted even tho he knew it would lead them into all kinds of hardship. <BR/><BR/>Same could be said with matter of divorce. In the Bible it says that "because of the hardness of their hearts...", He allowed divorce under certain circumstances. But surely the Ten Commandments still mean what they say. That is "God's will". <BR/><BR/>RE: wars, ideology and whatnot. <BR/><BR/>I don't think that wars and killing are what the Creator desires for His creation. But in His permissive will (that is, the exception made for having to work things out for His good around our willful selves) it is a fact of life that when left to our own devices, WE tend to WANT to annihilate others who severely inhibit our own goals and and purposes. Sometimes, however, those who will think of nothing but the annihilation of other races and their goals and purposes, and will not be deterred from this, God seemed to deem it in the best interest of everyone (jews and others) that people who believe this way do not continue to live on the earth. <BR/><BR/>Essentially, God was "allowing" (i.e. permissive will)the taking out of people groups who had developed bad views on human rights and or "freewill". <BR/><BR/>Think about it, is that really unjustifiable?<BR/><BR/>calAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-40901755096627057242007-04-17T11:53:00.000-04:002007-04-17T11:53:00.000-04:00Cal:"That is to assume that He is who He said He i...Cal:<BR/><BR/>"That is to assume that He is who He said He is, and He said what He was proposed to have said."<BR/><BR/>Why, isn't that what Jews, Christians and Muslims must assume?<BR/><BR/>"I believe it that God said all the the things that were declared by M, but not necessarily the tone or insinuation of what was meant by what God said."<BR/><BR/>There's the rub. What did God "really" mean, and how do you know? Also, how can God have meant the exact opposite of what he allegedly said? (I mean, an order to exterminate another tribe -including women, children, and old people - sounds pretty inequivocal to me; very little space for ambiguity and nuance!)<BR/><BR/>"But then, it is amazing what level of authority that an obvious lie can have in people's lives, isn't it."<BR/><BR/>Is it really? After a couple of millennia of behavioural reinforcement with the threat of torture and death and <B>then</B> more torture vs. the promise of eternal life?<BR/><BR/>A lot of people believe what they desperately want to be true. This has nothing <B>at all</B> to do with whether what they believe <B>is</B> true.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-11268146454252176432007-04-17T10:59:00.000-04:002007-04-17T10:59:00.000-04:00YP: "Most other wars, though, were not directed or...YP: "Most other wars, though, were not directed or encouraged by a perfectly moral and absolutely powerful entity."<BR/><BR/>That is to assume that He is who He said He is, and He said what He was proposed to have said. <BR/><BR/>I believe it that God said all the the things that were declared by M, but not necessarily the tone or insinuation of what was meant by what God said. Yourself or Massimo on the other hand, (I assume) don't believe in the factuality of the Bible at all, so what's the problem?<BR/><BR/>As far as the permissiveness of your own beliefs are concerned, it must just be another lie that people believe. Why would this one be any different?<BR/><BR/>But then, it is amazing what level of authority that an obvious lie can have in people's lives, isn't it. <BR/>calAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com